search_transcript

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the core function and parameter list. It does not mention return format, case sensitivity, or requirements like captions being enabled, providing minimal transparency.

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 concise with a single action-oriented sentence and a structured parameter list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be described. The description covers all parameters and the main action, but it doesn't mention limitations (e.g., videos without transcripts) or language code formats, leaving room for improvement.

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?

The Args section adds clear meaning to all schema parameters, including the default behavior for languages and the role of ctx. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable, though it could clarify language code formats.

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 clearly states 'Search for specific text within a YouTube video's transcript', which specifies the action, resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transcript (which retrieves full transcripts) and get_available_languages (which lists languages).

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 implies usage for searching within a transcript but does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling tools are not referenced, leaving the choice of tool to be inferred.

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