search_in_transcript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful disclosures: return format (matching segments with timestamps and YouTube URL links) and no API key requirement. However, it does not mention potential limitations, failure behavior, or whether the transcript is fetched internally. This is slightly above baseline but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and immediately tells the user what to expect, earning a high score.

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 tool with only two fully described parameters, the description adequately covers the essential context. It mentions the return payload (segments with timestamps and links) and notes the lack of API key requirement. While an output schema is absent, this level of detail is sufficient for a search operation.

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 descriptions already cover 100% of the parameters, so the description adds little beyond providing the context of searching within a transcript. It does not add details about query syntax, case sensitivity, or URL formats beyond what the schema states.

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 uses the specific verb 'searches' and clearly identifies the resource (YouTube video transcript). It also states what is returned (matching segments with timestamps and URLs), distinguishing it from siblings like get_transcript and summarize_transcript.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_transcript should be used for full transcript access or that this is intended for targeted search within a transcript. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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