search_transcripts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and provides meaningful behavioral details: case-insensitive matching, newest-first ordering, and inclusion of matching transcript lines as excerpts. It does not cover limit behavior or edge cases, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler, immediately stating the action and key return characteristics. Every word adds value.

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?

For a simple search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, sorting, and excerpt behavior. It does not need to explain return structure since the output schema exists, though limit behavior is not addressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but only implicitly covers 'query'. It does not explain the 'limit' parameter's meaning or effect, leaving a gap in parameter semantics.

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 specifies a unique action ('Search all transcripts for a phrase') with scope, case-insensitivity, and return format. It distinguishes from sibling tools (list/get) by focusing on search across all transcripts.

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 its use for finding content within transcripts, clearly distinct from listing or retrieving specific meetings. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools when other actions would be more appropriate.

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