search_transcripts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching 'locally stored transcripts first,' which hints at a fallback behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like what happens if no local transcripts exist, whether it searches remote sources, authentication needs, rate limits, or the format of search results. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key behavioral note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (search functionality with local prioritization), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are formatted, error conditions, or dependencies on other tools like 'check_local_transcripts.' For a tool with these gaps, more contextual information is needed.

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 50%, with the 'query' parameter documented but the 'dateRange' object lacking descriptions for its nested properties. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain query syntax, date range implications, or default behaviors. With partial schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate for the gaps, resulting in a baseline score.

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: 'Search across Zoom meeting transcripts for specific content.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('Zoom meeting transcripts'), and scope ('specific content'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_local_transcripts' or 'get_recent_transcripts', which likely have overlapping functionality.

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 some usage context with 'This tool will search through locally stored transcripts first,' implying a preference for local data. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_local_transcripts' or 'extract_action_items,' nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites for use.

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