search_subtitles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the return format (matching passages with timestamps and deep links) and performance characteristics (cheaper than reading the whole transcript). However, it does not mention potential failure modes, language availability, or limits, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then the benefit, then a follow-up suggestion. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema (all return values defined elsewhere), 5 parameters well-described in the schema, and clear sibling tools. The description adds the missing contextual piece: when to use it and how to combine it with get_subtitles, making it complete for the agent to invoke 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with rich descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, only referencing the workflow indirectly with 'time range' for follow-up, which doesn't clarify any parameter. Thus a 3 is appropriate.

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 finds where a phrase is said in a video, using a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('where a phrase is said in a video'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning it as a search step and mentioning follow-up with get_subtitles.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('Cheaper than reading the whole transcript') and names a specific alternative/follow-up (get_subtitles with a time range). It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, so it doesn't fully meet the 5-level, but it's well-guided.

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