search_bike_evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly aligns with read-only behavior. It adds valuable context about lexical matching, the 50-result cap, and that results include provenance, going beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions detected.

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 four sentences, each adding value: purpose, query style, result content, and search limitations. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes no extraneous words.

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 has three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core search behavior, query format, and result limits. However, it omits the purpose of episode_id and does not address when to use this tool versus siblings. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the missing parameter semantics and alternative guidance keep it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides guidance on the query parameter (short product/topic queries) and implicitly on limit via 'Maximum 50 results', but it does not explain the episode_id parameter at all. With three parameters, this is a significant gap, especially since episode_id is not self-explanatory from the schema alone.

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 finds timestamped transcript segments using keywords, and specifies that all query words must match. It also distinguishes itself from thematic analysis by stating it's lexical, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like get_evidence or get_episode_passages that might perform semantic retrieval.

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 advises using short product/topic queries rather than full questions, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_evidence or get_episode_passages, nor does it mention exclusions. The guidance on query format is helpful but incomplete for routing.

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