search_transcriptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: only transcribed records are reachable, absence of results reflects transcription coverage rather than existence, returns are summaries not page images, and transcriptions are fallible readings requiring verification against page images.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then layers coverage caveat and reliability caveat. Slightly prose-heavy, but each sentence carries distinct information that changes how an agent uses the results; nothing is redundant.

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 supplies the return shape ('record summaries') plus the two facts an agent most needs to interpret results correctly: partial transcription coverage and the unreliability of transcribed text. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (naid, page, limit, query, contributor) are already documented in the schema, including query operator syntax. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond 'returns record summaries', so the baseline of 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 precise verb and resource ('Find records whose citizen transcriptions mention something') and immediately distinguishes itself from catalogue search: 'This searches the documents rather than the catalogue.' An agent can tell this apart from search_records without opening 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?

Gives strong when-to-use framing (documents vs catalogue, transcribed-only coverage, silence ≠ nonexistence) with a concrete example of the difference in results. It stops short of naming the obvious sibling alternative, search_extracted_text, which an agent must choose between for document-text search.

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