uclass_search_transcript

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the output structure and the important caveat that candidates, proposals, or partial results should not be treated as final without surrounding evidence.

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?

Three efficient sentences with no wasted words. The core function is front-loaded, followed by the intended use case and a necessary interpretive caution.

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 description explains the output shape and the key interpretive caveat, and the schema covers the parameters. It lacks only an explicit pointer to uclass_read_transcript for when a full transcript is needed, but that is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does not need to; the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Search a published Class transcript'. It also describes the concrete output ('evidence windows with neighboring interventions and [m:ss] timestamps') and the use case ('what was explained, agreed, assigned, or said'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling uclass_read_transcript, which presumably returns the full 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?

Gives clear context for when to use the tool: to answer questions about explanations, agreements, assignments, or statements made in class. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the framing is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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