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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about return format, concurrency, rate limits, or authentication, and critically omits any mention of pagination/truncation despite a maxChars parameter. The one behavioral hint — 'bounded window' — is vague and predates knowledge of the actual constraints.

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 short sentences, no filler. The primary purpose leads and the sibling-routing guidance follows immediately. Every clause 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?

A 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to cover parameter meaning, default behavior, and return shape. The description covers only routing rationale; it omits parameter semantics, defaults, and output contract, leaving significant gaps for an agent to call it 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 0%, so all four parameters (videoId, maxChars, startSeconds, endSeconds) are undocumented beyond their JSON types. The description mentions only 'bounded' and 'for one video', which hints at videoId and the time/character bounds, but it names no parameter and provides no format, default, or boundary semantics. With a 0% coverage gap the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get a bounded transcript window for one video'), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling search_transcript_passages by describing itself as the follow-up context-inspection tool. Loses a point only because 'bounded window' is slightly jargon-ish, but the resource (transcript) and scope (one video, bounded window) are unambiguous.

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 names the alternative (search_transcript_passages) for discovery and states the exact condition for using this tool instead: after selecting a video, to inspect surrounding context. This is a textbook when-to-use/when-to-use-alternative statement.

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