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

Annotations already establish a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is scoped to the connected account and returns bounded ranked snippets rather than full transcripts. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but it adds meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states scope and result type immediately and does not waste space.

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 output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, but the description leaves all three input parameters unexplained, including cursor pagination. For a search tool with zero schema description coverage, this is incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 0%, and the description provides no semantics for query, limit, or cursor. The word 'bounded' hints at a result cap but does not explain parameter behavior. With three undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Searches') and states the scope ('only the connected Wisprs account') and result form ('bounded ranked snippets, not complete transcripts'), which distinguishes it from full-transcript retrieval. It stops short of naming a sibling tool, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 implies the tool is for snippet search within the connected account and signals that full transcripts are handled elsewhere, but it never states when to choose this over list_transcripts or get_transcript. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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