search_transcript

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior—searching a transcript and returning timestamped segments with context—but does not cover edge cases like missing transcripts, language fallback behavior, or case sensitivity. Still, the essential behavior is stated directly.

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 short sentences with no filler or redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core action and immediately states the output, making it easy for an agent to scan and understand.

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 simple parameter set and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it names the input focus (transcript search) and the output shape (matching segments with timestamps and context). It lacks explicit usage guidance but remains complete for a straightforward searchtool.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra detail about the parameters, such as URL formats, language code conventions, or query formatting. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the load.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('YouTube video's transcript'), and defines the output as matching segments with timestamps and surrounding context. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_transcript, which returns full transcripts rather than search results.

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 the tool is for locating keywords or phrases within a transcript, which is a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over get_transcript or search_within_channel, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative routing.

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