search_transcripts

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the internal mechanism (GIN FTS index), return content (matching segments joined to call metadata), query syntax (websearch), and filtering options (since/until/host_email). This goes well beyond a simple 'search' statement.

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 compact yet information-dense: purpose in one clause, usage guidance in one sentence, and parameter syntax in one final sentence. There is no filler, and critical details are front-loaded. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose without 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?

For a search tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it searches, when to use it, how it behaves, and what each parameter means. The existence of an output schema relieves the need to describe return fields, and the description successfully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Despite the schema having no property descriptions, the description adds rich meaning to 4 of 5 parameters: query (websearch syntax with examples), since/until (ISO-8601 format), and host_email (filters by owner). Only limit is left to schema, but its default is visible and self-explanatory, so the description compensates admirably.

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 opens with 'Full-text search across transcript_segments', which clearly states the tool's function and target resource. It further distinguishes itself from alternatives by highlighting the GIN FTS index and speed advantage, making its purpose unambiguous in the context of sibling tools.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'Prefer this over ILIKE when searching for phrases in calls' and explains why (GIN FTS index, ~100x faster). This gives clear when-to-use direction and explicitly names an alternative (ILIKE), satisfying the criterion for explicit alternatives and usage context.

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