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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the ranking behavior, the ~600-character snippet, the '#t-N' URL anchoring scheme, a citation instruction, and the important caveat that transcripts are machine-generated and quotes should be checked against the recording.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then output shape, then citation guidance, then sibling routing, then the accuracy caveat. Five dense sentences with no filler; every clause carries actionable information.

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 fully compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the URL format, and it flags the reliability caveat about machine-generated text. An agent has everything needed to call it and to cite results correctly.

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 query, limit and episode are already documented with ranges and defaults, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the episode restriction but adds no syntax or format detail, and notably omits the limit parameter that the schema exposes.

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 ('Full-text search over Chain of Thought transcripts') plus the exact shape of the result: up to 20 ranked passages with episode number, title, guests, speaker, timestamp, snippet and URL. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_episodes and get_transcript_excerpt.

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 names a follow-up alternative ('Use get_transcript_excerpt for context') and explains the optional episode scoping, giving the agent clear routing context. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool, e.g. why to prefer search_episodes, so it does not reach a full 5.

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