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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds non-obvious behavior: results are limited to the caller's own transcripts, only the latest 10, retained just 24 hours. It also sketches the return payload (passages, repeated themes with counts, live transcripts), which is more than the annotations 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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then examples, then scope, then parameter guidance. Dense and efficient, though the return-shape sentence is a touch redundant given an output schema exists.

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 zero-required-parameter search tool with a rich output schema, the description covers trigger, modes, scope, retention, and parameter conditions. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: omitting query switches the tool into a listing/themes mode rather than simply leaving a filter unset, and library_id's conditional provenance from transcribe_media is spelled out.

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 (search/find) and resource (the caller's own saved transcripts), and pins the scope precisely: the latest 10, kept 24 hours. It is clearly distinguishable from transcribe_media, which produces the transcripts this tool searches.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when the user wants to find something across the transcripts they made in the last day') with three concrete example phrasings. It also explains the two modes (pass query for passages vs. omit it to list transcripts/themes) and when library_id is required.

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