search_transcript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses case-insensitivity, which is a key behavior. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, required authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. For a search operation, likely read-only, but not stated.

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, free of fluff, and front-loaded with the core action. 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description needn't detail return values, but it already mentions 'matching lines with timestamps'. The tool is simple and the description covers the essentials. However, it could note that the search is within a single transcript, especially given sibling tools.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains 'keyword' (search term) and 'video_url' (transcript source) through the tool's purpose, but adds no details on format, constraints, or examples. Partial compensation, but insufficient for full clarity.

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 the tool's purpose: searching inside a video transcript and returning matching lines with timestamps. It mentions case-insensitivity, which adds specificity. The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like get_timestamped_transcript (which retrieves full transcript) and get_youtube_transcript (which fetches 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?

The description provides some guidance ('Helpful when an agent needs to find a specific topic'), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. With siblings present, it does not differentiate usage conditions, e.g., when to use this over get_timestamped_transcript.

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