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

With no annotations (0%), the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates 'searchable by transcript', omitting details like pagination behavior (page/limit), sorting, field selection, or error handling. The agent lacks critical behavioral context for correct invocation.

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?

At 15 words, the description is concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices informativeness—for a 7-parameter tool, brevity becomes under-specification. It earns its sentence length but could convey more key details without being bloated.

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?

Given no output schema, zero annotations, and 7 parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify return format, result structure, or how parameters like 'fields', 'sort', and 'match' affect output. The agent lacks enough information to fully understand tool behavior.

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 low (29%). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema (partially) provides. It does not explain the 'tags', 'match', 'fields', or 'sort' parameters, failing to compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching a video library of API interviews and discussions by transcript. It explicitly names the resource ('video library') and the search capability, distinguishing it from siblings focused on other content types (e.g., conversations, papers).

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'find_conversations', 'find_papers') or specify any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent receives no guidance on selection context.

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