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. It discloses the core behavior (full-text search, returns segments with meeting context and speaker attribution) but omits details like whether results are ordered, any performance implications, or auth requirements. It is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, then a brief statement of return payload. Zero waste and easy to scan.

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 gives enough context for a straightforward search tool: what it searches, what it returns. With no output schema or annotations, it could elaborate on result ordering or pagination, but the schema's limit parameter and the sibling set make the intended use reasonably clear. It is complete enough for common usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so the description need not explain parameters in depth. It does mention the search behavior and return context, which aligns with the query parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 clearly states the tool's function: full-text search across all meeting transcripts. It uses the specific verb 'Search' and names the resource ('meeting transcripts'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_meeting_transcript (which retrieves a specific transcript) and find_speakers (which searches for speakers).

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 implies the use case: searching across all transcripts when you need to find matching segments with speaker context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope ('across all meeting transcripts') is clear enough to differentiate it from sibling tools.

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