Keyword search WITHIN a single episode's transcript. Returns matching chunks with surrounding context. Use instead of get_transcription when the user asked about a specific topic — server does this faster + cheaper on context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Topic, phrase, or speaker name | |
| episode_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds that it returns matching chunks with surrounding context, which is beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true). It implies no destructive effects and aligns with read-only nature. However, does not mention search limits or pagination.
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 with zero redundancy. First sentence states purpose and output, second gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place.
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 simple search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. No missing crucial information.
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 50% (query has description 'Topic, phrase, or speaker name'). Description clarifies that episode_id identifies a single episode and query performs keyword search, adding meaning to both parameters without repeating 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?
Clearly states verb 'keyword search' within resource 'single episode's transcript' and describes output 'matching chunks with surrounding context'. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying single-episode scope.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use instead of get_transcription when the user asked about a specific topic' and provides rationale: 'server does this faster + cheaper on context'. Clearly guides when to choose this tool over alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are largely distinct, covering separate actions (search, get, list, generate, transcribe, save). The main potential confusion is between list_episodes and list_feed_episodes, but descriptions clearly separate local from external.
All tools follow consistent verb_noun snake_case patterns (get_, list_, search_, generate_, transcribe_, save/remove), with no mixed conventions or unexpected styles.
25 tools is at the high end for a server of this scope. The broad domain justifies many functions, but the count feels heavy and some tools could be consolidated without losing clarity.
Discovery, ingestion, transcription, lesson generation, and user account management are all well covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to delete or update lessons beyond save/remove.