Search Zero Transcripts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral trait—it searches only titles and summaries and does not retrieve full transcript bodies—but it says nothing about result shape, ordering, pagination, or matching semantics. This is comparable to metadata-scoped read tools that add modest context beyond annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It communicates the core action, the resource scope, and an important behavioral constraint efficiently.

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 two-parameter search tool, the description covers the essential scope of the query but omits return-value expectations and search behavior details like substring/fuzzy matching or ordering. With no output schema present, the description could do more to tell the agent what it will receive.

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 carries the burden for parameter meaning. It usefully explains that q applies to transcript titles and summaries, not full bodies. However, it says nothing about limit, result counts, or how the query string is matched, leaving part of the parameter surface undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search transcript titles and summaries.' It also distinguishes from get_transcript and list_transcripts by noting it does so 'without loading full transcript bodies.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling search_zero, leaving some ambiguity about when to pick one search tool over the other.

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 phrase 'without loading full transcript bodies' implies this is the lightweight metadata search option rather than a full-content search, giving some contextual guidance. But it names no alternatives, gives no when-to-use versus search_zero or get_transcript guidance, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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