Search

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the call may consume paid API credits, that confirm=true is required, and that despite being a POST it does not publish to social platforms. That is substantive, non-obvious behavioral context. It stops short of describing rate limits or exactly when credits are charged.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return fields, then the credit/confirm caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the field enumeration is slightly list-heavy.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the returned fields (title, URL, thumbnail, channel, dates, view counts, cursor), which compensates well. Combined with the credit/confirm disclosure, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (query, cursor, account, confirm) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the cursor's role as a paging token but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Searches Rumble videos by keyword') and distinguishes itself from platform siblings like rumble_video, rumble_channel_videos, and rumble_transcript by scoping to keyword search. An agent can identify the right tool without opening the schema.

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?

Keyword-search semantics imply when to use it versus browsing a channel, but the description never explicitly names an alternative or an exclusion (e.g. use rumble_channel_videos to browse a channel). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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