fireflies_search_transcripts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns a 'human-readable list of matching transcripts with metadata and summary information', which gives some output context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('search for transcripts containing specific keywords') and adds secondary details ('optional date filtering', 'returns a human-readable list'). There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with filtering), 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and output format but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, limits) and usage guidelines relative to siblings, making it minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying date filtering is optional, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose: searching for transcripts containing keywords with optional date filtering. It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('transcripts'), and scope ('keywords, with optional date filtering'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fireflies_get_transcripts' which might retrieve transcripts without searching.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fireflies_get_transcripts' or 'fireflies_get_transcript_details'. It mentions optional date filtering but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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