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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: search scope is limited to the user's own transcripts and translations, and the result is a set of surrounding passages tagged with their originating transcript. It does not describe ranking, snippet size, or pagination beyond the schema's limit.

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, front-loaded with what the tool does and what it returns, then the use case. No filler, though the trailing example clause is slightly illustrative rather than strictly necessary.

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 no output schema, the description usefully fills that gap by explaining that results are surrounding passages with their source transcript, and it states the searchable scope. Remaining gaps (result ranking, date-filter interaction) are minor for a read-only search tool whose annotations and schema are rich.

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 the from/to date bounds and the limit/default-max are already fully documented in the schema. The description says the query is a 'word or phrase' without adding matching semantics (exact phrase vs fuzzy, case sensitivity), so it neither compensates nor regresses. 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource (search transcripts and translations for a word or phrase) and even states the return shape (passages around each match with their source transcript). It implicitly separates itself from get_transcript by promising results 'without reading whole transcripts', but it never names a sibling tool explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

'Use this to answer questions about what was said or decided without reading whole transcripts' gives a clear use context, reinforced by concrete examples (price, name, deadline). There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative (e.g. get_transcript_summary, list_transcripts), so it stops short of the top band.

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