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 useful context beyond that: ranked results, matching snippets with UTC start times, and the fact that it spans all recording kinds. Pagination semantics (cursor) are left to the schema, keeping this from a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then examples, then sibling routing and constraints. Multilingual examples are compact and earn their place by illustrating the natural-language matching behavior.

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 17 optional parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers what to search, what comes back, and which sibling to use instead. It does not mention paging or how the many filter parameters (team/project/workspace/status) combine, but those are well-documented in the schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 100%, so every one of the 17 parameters is already documented, including the query/terms interplay and min lengths. The description restates the query and terms semantics but adds no new syntax, format, or filtering guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (finds recordings) with the two retrieval modes (title or spoken content) and examples. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools search_all_transcripts and search_within_recording, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance with named alternatives: search_all_transcripts for cross-recording quotes, search_within_recording inside a known recording. It also explains the query-vs-terms interaction and the 3-character minimum, leaving little to inference.

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