semantic_search_transcripts

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals auto-indexing, performance characteristics (slower first search), and scope details. It does not discuss permission requirements or potential side effects beyond indexing, leaving minor gaps.

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 well-structured with a clear headline, functional description, parameter documentation, return value summary, and notes. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity (7 params, auto-indexing, multiple scope options) and the presence of an output schema (which excuses full return value specification), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, behavior, performance, and scope. No critical gaps remain.

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%, but the description includes a detailed Args section with explanations and examples for all 7 parameters, adding significant meaning beyond the schema definitions (e.g., query example, default values, optionality).

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 explicitly states it searches transcripts using natural language with semantic similarity, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like semantic_search_all and semantic_search_comments by specifying the scope (video transcripts) and automatic indexing.

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 clear context for usage: when to use (natural language search over video transcripts), performance expectations (first search slower), and scope behavior (if no channel_ids/video_ids, searches all indexed content). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus sibling search tools.

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