nass_search_transcript

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two useful traits: the returned content (precise quotes, timestamps, source links) and that Arabic diacritics/alef variants are normalized "for retrieval only" (i.e., matching is normalized, source text is not altered). It omits permissions, rate limits, and how max_matches/context_segments bound the result.

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, front-loaded with the core action and return shape, with the normalization caveat placed second where it belongs. No filler.

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?

Return format and normalization behavior are covered, which is the hardest part here given no output schema. However, for a four-parameter tool with zero schema documentation and no annotations, the definition leaves parameter meanings and any operational constraints unaddressed, so it is only partially complete.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not: query and job_id are never explained, and the two bounded integers (max_matches default 15, context_segments default 1) are not mentioned. "Return precise quotes/timestamps" weakly hints at context_segments but gives no semantics for job_id scoping.

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 ("Search complete stored transcript") and adds the return shape (quotes, timestamps, source links), which cleanly separates it from nass_get_transcript's full-retrieval role. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than stated.

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 word "search" implies a retrieval use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as nass_get_transcript or nass_job_status. An agent must guess when searching beats fetching the whole transcript.

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