query_transcripts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that reads span two collections (live store + legacy archive June 2025–June 2026), that nothing is migrated between them, and that each result carries a `source` field naming its origin.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by provenance detail and the usage trigger. Four sentences that each carry information; only the 'second tier, word for word' phrasing is slightly cryptic, but it earns its place by contrasting with the compressed layer.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return shape (sessions grouped, each carrying `source`) and the two backing stores. Annotations handle safety; parameters are fully covered by the schema. Adequate for a read-only query tool, though it could note ordering or pagination behavior.

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 all four parameters (limit, session_id, timestamp_start/end) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or filtering nuance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Retrieve session transcripts') and clarifies it reads both the live store and the legacy archive. This distinguishes it from query_layer/recall by framing it as the 'second tier' depth source, though the tier jargon is not self-evident without sibling context.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use condition ('when a layer entry is relevant but thin: the transcript around its timestamp holds the depth the layer compressed out'), implicitly positioning it against query_layer. No explicit exclusions or negative guidance, but the selection condition is clear.

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