search_transcripts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it. It does not disclose case sensitivity, whether archived transcripts are excluded by default, how results are ranked or truncated, or whether the search spans all sessions or a current session. Only the corpus of providers is revealed.

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 no filler; the action and the searchable corpus come first. Nothing in it is redundant or padded.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the meaning of agent/limit/include_archived, result ordering, and return shape, so an agent cannot confidently construct a correct call beyond the required query.

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, but it only loosely maps to 'query' via the word 'phrase'. The agent, limit, and include_archived parameters receive no explanation of format, valid values, or defaults, leaving three of four parameters 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (transcripts) plus the corpus of agent sources covered, which is more informative than the bare name. It is distinguishable from the sibling read_transcript by implying a match-based lookup, though it never explicitly contrasts the two.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description never says when to prefer search_transcripts over read_transcript, list_sessions, or search_memories, nor does it state prerequisites or scope limits. The usage is only implied by the verb 'search'.

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