list_transcripts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'List or search' but doesn't describe key behaviors such as pagination handling (implied by 'page' parameter), default values, error conditions, or response format. For a read operation with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys key information. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating listing vs. searching, but it's still highly concise.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and search usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, error handling, or interactions with parameters. Without annotations or output schema, more context is needed for full agent understanding, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 high at 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reiterates the 'search' parameter's purpose ('find by video id, title, or transcript content'), which is already covered in the schema description. It doesn't explain other parameters like 'status' enum values or 'include_segments', so it doesn't compensate for the 17% coverage gap, resulting in an adequate but not enhanced score.

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: 'List or search user transcripts' with the verb 'list/search' and resource 'user transcripts'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_transcript' (singular) and 'delete_transcript' (deletion) by indicating it handles multiple transcripts. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search' functionality in other tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 usage context: 'Use search to find by video id, title, or transcript content,' which implies when to use the search parameter. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_transcript' for a single transcript or how it relates to other siblings. No exclusions or clear alternatives are mentioned, making it only implied usage.

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