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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: null window semantics, pagination via offset, the 1–40 limit bound, and the return shape ("matching rows with timestamps"). That is solid added context for a read tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and windowing semantics, then pagination and use case. The parenthetical is an efficient way to encode the null-window rule. Dense but not padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly covers the return shape (matching rows with timestamps) plus windowing and pagination. An 8-required-param tool at 38% schema coverage still leaves kind/query/id meaning implicit, which keeps this short of a 5.

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 low (38%), so the description should compensate, and it does explain the windowing params (startSeconds/durationSeconds null behavior), offset paging, and the limit range. However, id, kind (the only enum), and query get no explanatory treatment in either schema or description, leaving real gaps for a search tool.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Search stored transcript text") and states the scope (source-time window or whole asset). It is clear on its own, but it never differentiates itself from close siblings like read_transcript, read_analysis_range, or search_video_moments, so an agent cannot fully route between them from the text alone.

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?

"Use this to locate interesting moments in footage" gives an implied use case, but there is no when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the transcript/video-moment siblings. The agent must infer when this beats read_transcript or search_video_moments.

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