Videos

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds return-shape context the annotations cannot: every video carries a page url on video.varzesh3.com, which matters because there is no output schema. Paging behavior and default page size are left entirely to the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage examples, then return detail. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence is padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-parameter, read-only listing tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, selection guidance and the key returned field. Minor gaps: no mention of pagination limits (take max 30) or what happens when scope is scoped but id is null.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns above that by explaining scope/id coupling in plain language ('about one team, league, match or player') and reinforcing that scoped queries require an id. It does not, however, add anything for skip/take/sport beyond what the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get Varzesh3 videos') and enumerates the content types (goals, match summaries, interviews) plus the retrieval axes (latest, team, league, match, player). No sibling tool covers video content, so the resource alone differentiates it from v3_news, v3_match and the rest.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete natural-language-to-call mappings ('highlights of the Perspolis match' -> scope="match" with the match id; 'latest goals'), which tells the agent when this is the right tool. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. use v3_news for written coverage), but no sibling really competes for video lookups.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.