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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by naming the transcribe_media dependency and describing returned source and timeline times, which is especially valuable because there is no output 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?

The definition is a single compact statement with the core action front-loaded and no wasted wording. It efficiently packs the scope, prerequisite, and return behavior into one sentence.

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?

The core invocation is clear and annotations cover the safety profile, but the lack of an output schema makes the return description somewhat loose. It also omits phrase matching behavior and any result limits or pagination details.

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?

The schema documents the project parameter as an id or exact name, while the phrase parameter only has a minLength constraint and no description. The description reuses both names but does not explain phrase matching semantics, such as exact match, case sensitivity, or multiple occurrences, so it does little to compensate for the 50% schema description coverage.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: finding a phrase across media with transcripts in a project. It also clarifies the return scope with source times per media and timeline times through clips, which distinguishes it from sibling search tools.

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?

It clearly implies the prerequisite that a transcript must exist from transcribe_media, providing useful context for when this tool applies. It does not explicitly compare against sibling alternatives such as search_footage or transcribe_media, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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