search_transcriptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: only transcribed records are reachable, results are summaries, and transcriptions are second-hand readings requiring image verification.

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 and the document-vs-catalogue distinction are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct value (reachability limit, return shape, evidence caveat). Slightly lengthy, but no sentence is filler.

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 compensates by stating that it returns record summaries. Combined with the transcription caveat and reachability limit, an agent has enough to call and interpret results, though pagination/limit behavior is left to the schema.

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 naid, page, limit, query and contributor are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource ('Find records whose citizen transcriptions mention something') and immediately draws the crucial line against catalogue-based search ('searches the documents rather than the catalogue'). An agent can distinguish this from search_records/search_extracted_text siblings without opening any 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?

Gives clear when-to-use context via the pension-file example and a when-not-to-conclude caveat ('silence here means nobody has transcribed it, not that it does not exist'). It does not name alternative tools explicitly, so it stops short of the 5-level routing guidance.

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