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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: results are segments in order with speaker and startMs, only matches are returned (no full transcript paging), and the 3-character minimum is surfaced in prose.

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 sentences, zero filler. The core purpose and scoping constraint come first, with constraints and the terms/query relationship packed into the second sentence. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 6-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and an output schema, this covers what an agent needs: what it returns, how results are shaped, the minimum query length, and the terms semantics. Return-value documentation is correctly delegated to the output schema.

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. The description goes further by explaining the OR-match intent of terms ('any of several words, synonyms or spellings in one call') and the interaction where query becomes one more alternative, which helps an agent choose between query and terms rather than duplicating schema text.

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+resource+scope: finds where a topic came up inside one recording identified by sessionId. The two example queries (English and German) make the intended use immediately concrete, and 'inside one recording' implicitly separates it from the sibling search_all_transcripts.

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?

Example phrasings make clear when this is the right tool, and 'without paging the whole transcript' signals it is preferable to pulling a full transcript for a targeted question. It never names an alternative tool explicitly or states when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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