Search ScreenApp transcripts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description is not responsible for safety. It adds a meaningful behavioral boundary—no AI answer generation—which implies lower cost/latency, but it does not disclose result shape or pagination. 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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the distinction from AI answers is included economically. Structure is excellent.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description captures intent and boundary but leaves return format, pagination, and optional filter behavior unexplained. The strong annotations cover safety, so this is acceptable but not comprehensive for a new agent.

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 description clarifies that query targets transcript text, which is useful because the query property has no schema description. But it ignores ownerIds/parentIds and filter semantics, and schema description coverage is only 50%. It adds only minimal value beyond the obvious.

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 precise action and object—'Search existing transcript text'—and immediately flags what it is not: an AI-generated answer. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_summary without requiring the schema.

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?

Clearly indicates the appropriate context: raw transcript lookup rather than AI-generated answers. However, it never names the alternative tool explicitly and gives no detailed when-to-use versus get_transcript or get_summary, so the routing is clear but implicit.

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