Find where something was said

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the search is literal rather than semantic, results carry timestamps and speakers, and the operation is free. It does not cover pagination or result-limit behavior, which is the one remaining gap.

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 sentences plus a cost note, all front-loaded: return shape first, then the routing decision, then the critical matching-mode caveat. No sentence is 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return contents (matching turns with timestamps and speakers). Combined with the routing guidance and the literal-vs-semantic warning, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by clarifying the nature of the 'query' parameter — literal spoken-text matching, not paraphrase — which materially changes how an agent should construct the query. The max_results default is left to the schema.

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 ('searches a finished transcript') plus what it returns ('matching turns with their timestamps and speakers'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_transcript by framing itself as the targeted alternative to reading a whole 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?

Explicitly states when to prefer this tool over the alternative ('Prefer this over reading a whole transcript when the question is about a specific topic or moment'). This names both the alternative behavior and the selecting condition, leaving nothing to inference.

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