Search spoken words

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description usefully adds the return shape (matching lines with videoFileID and start/end seconds) and the index limitation that only transcribed videos are searched. No pagination or ranking behavior is disclosed, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then return value, then the alternative tool and the indexing caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is wasted.

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 carries the burden of describing results and does so precisely (line content, videoFileID, start/end seconds). Combined with the transcription precondition and the follow-up tool, an agent has everything needed to call and use it correctly.

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% (limit's default/max and query's meaning are both documented in the schema). The description adds no syntax, matching, or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 with scope: 'Search what is said out loud in the user's ... videos'. The phrase 'said out loud' immediately differentiates it from search_videos, search_scenes, and search_actors without the agent needing to consult any other 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?

Names a follow-up tool explicitly ('Use get_video_transcript to read the lines around a hit') and states a real precondition ('Only videos that have been transcribed are searched'). It does not give explicit when-not guidance against the other search_* siblings, but the context is clear.

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