search_transcripts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that this is a search operation over all transcripts and that the result will be excerpts with episode titles and dates. It does not detail ranking or matching semantics, but for a read-only search tool the core behavioral guarantees are clearly stated.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states scope and output; the second gives usage guidance with examples. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential expectations: what is searched, what is returned, and what kinds of queries to make. It stops short of explaining result ordering or what happens when no matches are found, but the limit parameter and the 'relevant excerpts' phrasing make the tool reasonably complete for agent use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete example topics for the query parameter ('AI, regulation, big tech companies, social media, privacy, antitrust'), helping the agent craft better searches. It does not add much about limit, but the schema already documents that.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search across all Big Technology Podcast transcripts' and states what is returned: 'relevant excerpts from episodes with titles and dates.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_episode and list_episodes, which are about retrieving episode metadata rather than searching transcript content.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this to find what tech leaders and experts have said about specific topics like AI, regulation, big tech companies, social media, privacy, antitrust, etc.' It gives clear context for use, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. This fits the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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