VidLens

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

Excellent given zero annotations: explicitly describes return characteristics ('compact ranked results with provenance and engagement hints') and latency ('[~1-3s]'). Adds meaningful context about result format and performance expectations beyond what any annotation would provide.

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?

Extremely tight: two sentences front-loaded with purpose, specific behavioral traits, and latency hint. Zero wasted words.

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?

Adequate for basic invocation but insufficient for a 9-parameter tool with complex filtering (date ranges, duration buckets). Missing output schema means description should elaborate on 'provenance' and 'engagement hints' structure, and parameter guidance is needed given low schema coverage.

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?

With only 11% schema coverage (just 'query' described), the description fails to compensate for 8 undocumented parameters including 'dryRun', 'duration' enums, date filters, and 'order' options. 'By intent' vaguely implies query semantics but doesn't clarify filtering capabilities.

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?

Clear verb ('Search') and resource ('YouTube videos'), with specific phrasing 'by intent' suggesting semantic search capabilities. Distinguishes sufficiently from siblings like searchComments or searchTranscripts which target specific data types, not whole videos.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or differentiation from siblings like 'inspectVideo' (direct lookup) vs this search functionality. No mention of when to use filtering params vs simple query.

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