search_reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the corpus (Vincent and Robach timed segments), the matching behavior, and case-insensitivity, but it omits pagination, result limits, and ordering behavior for what is presumably a read-only search over a large corpus.

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-loaded with the core action, followed by scope and return fields. The redundant 'Args:' block restates the single parameter, but the whole definition stays short and easy to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-field listing is a bonus rather than a requirement. For a single-parameter read search, the description covers corpus, matching semantics, and parameter meaning adequately.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by defining query as a 'search term' and adding the case-insensitivity semantic that the schema lacks. It's a single well-defined parameter, so full compensation is achievable and largely delivered.

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 (search) and resource (review segments) plus the scope ('across all'). It's clearly distinguishable from get_track, list_tracks, and get_analysis, though it doesn't explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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?

Implies usage via 'keyword or phrase' search, which signals this is the lookup-by-text tool rather than a listing or retrieval tool. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing.

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