Ask Bob: Moneytalk Archive

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds substantial content-level disclosure: no transcript/audio, unverified speaker attribution, omitted caller titles/summaries, opaque IDs, and links that don't resolve to a single clip. These prevent false expectations about the payload. It stops short of covering error behavior for an invalid/nonexistent ID.

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?

Four short sentences, all information-bearing, with the core verb+resource front-loaded in the first clause. It reads as a compressed caveat list, which is efficient but slightly list-like rather than flowing prose.

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 carries the burden of describing the return contents, and it does so by enumerating what is and is not available in the clip. Only error/not-found behavior and the meaning of 'canonical original' resolution are left unexplained.

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 0% and the single clip_id property has only a regex pattern documented. The description partially compensates by warning that IDs are opaque and require exact match, but it gives no format guidance or indication of where a valid ID originates (e.g., from search results), leaving a real gap.

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 ('Return one historical clip by exact ID') plus the scope caveat of the canonical original mapping, which clearly sets it apart from search_moneytalk and list_moneytalk_episodes (ID lookup vs. browse/search). It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'By exact ID' implies this is the wrong tool when you only have topic/date text, and the note that only reviewed topic/date labels are searchable hints the search tool is the alternative. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or pointer to search_moneytalk for discovering IDs.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description goes well beyond them with substantive data-coverage disclosures: post-2018 originals excluded, reruns aliased, only reviewed labels searchable, caller titles/summaries omitted, opaque clip IDs, and collection links not resolving to a single clip. These are exactly the gotchas an agent needs before interpreting results.

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?

Dense but efficient: the purpose leads, and each subsequent clause carries a distinct data constraint rather than filler. The final sentence about clip IDs and collection links is slightly tangential to a list operation but still earns its place given no output schema exists.

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 covers return-value quirks, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage it leaves the parameters, defaults, and limit-based pagination entirely unexplained, which is a real gap for correct invocation.

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?

Three parameters (date, year, limit) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about any of them — no date format, no interaction between date and year, no limit cap of 20, no default. The passing references to 'date labels' and 'same date' do not document the parameters.

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 (List) and a precisely scoped resource (unique historical Moneytalk recording metadata and canonical collection links), including the deduplication rule for distinct hours on the same date. It does not name search_moneytalk or get_moneytalk_clip, so the agent must infer the boundary from the implied 'searchable labels' phrasing.

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?

The description explains what data is and isn't included (originals after 2018-09-30 excluded, reruns are aliases), but never states when to call this versus search_moneytalk or get_moneytalk_clip. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance.

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

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: the result shape (dated collection links and original-recording timestamps), the searchable-field limitation, and the caveat that clip IDs are opaque and collection links do not open an individual clip.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the following sentences each add a distinct caveat (return shape, non-transcript scope, opaque IDs). Five dense sentences are justified, though the 'differs from the website transcript search' clause could be tightened.

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 helpfully explains what is returned and what is not, plus notable limitations. It falls short only on parameter behavior, which is undocumented in both schema and description.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only loosely gestures at topic/date labels ('only reviewed topic/date labels are searchable') while the required 'query' matching semantics, 'limit' bounds, and date-range behavior are left unexplained, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Search historical Moneytalk clip metadata') and clarifies scope by negation ('not transcripts or current financial advice'). It does not explicitly name or contrast with the siblings get_moneytalk_clip and list_moneytalk_episodes, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It distinguishes this metadata search from 'the website transcript search' and warns that only reviewed topic/date labels are searchable, which is useful when-to-use context. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_moneytalk_clip or list_moneytalk_episodes, leaving sibling routing to inference.

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