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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains the search scope (last 200 ready transcripts) and the output highlights (timestamp and speaker name). It does not cover edge cases like exact matching or default limits, but the core behavior is transparent enough for a search tool.

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 description is two compact sentences with no filler. The behavior is front-loaded, and the example adds practical value without bloating the definition.

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 two-parameter search tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the scope, the query behavior, and the key output fields. With no output schema, it could be more explicit about response structure and default limit behavior, but these are minor gaps.

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%: both 'query' and 'limit' already have descriptions. The tool description adds some context about what is searched and returned, but it does not substantially enrich the meaning of the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action ('Ищет фразу по текстам последних 200 готовых расшифровок') and identifies the resource and scope clearly. It is easily distinguished from siblings like list_transcripts (listing metadata) and get_transcript (fetching one transcript) because it focuses on content search across recent 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?

The description gives a concrete use case: finding where a topic was discussed in a long call without rereading everything. It implies when the tool should be used, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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