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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: what the results look like (id, title, url) and that fetch is the follow-up for summaries and transcript excerpts, which shapes the agent's workflow.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first defines the operation, the second defines the output and the follow-up path. Nothing is wasted and the most important information leads.

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 rich annotations and an output schema, the description need not explain return values, yet it still names the key fields and the fetch handoff, making it self-sufficient for invocation. The one shortfall is that it never positions itself against search_segments or search_transcripts, leaving sibling selection ambiguous.

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% and there is a single required 'query' parameter with an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description broadens the semantic space to 'topic, project, person or claim', which is mildly useful, but adds no syntax, matching, or formatting guidance beyond the schema.

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 and resource with scope: 'Search every ATC show for a topic, project, person or claim', plus the return type. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like search_segments, search_transcripts, or topic_timeline, which an agent must still guess between.

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?

Gives clear usage context (find shows/segments about a topic, project, person, or claim) and an explicit next step: 'Use fetch with an id for the summary and a transcript excerpt.' It lacks any when-not guidance or comparison to the sibling search tools, which is the main remaining gap.

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