search_transcript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that query matching is case-insensitive and substring-based, and that languages default to ['en']. However, it does not mention what happens when no transcript is available, whether network fetching is involved, or how missing language captions are handled.

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 opens with a precise one-sentence purpose and then uses a clean bulleted Args list. There is no redundant or filler text; every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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, the description covers purpose, return type (matching segments with timestamps), and all parameters. An output schema exists to cover return-value details, but the description does not address edge cases or when to choose this tool over siblings, so it is not 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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: video_url_or_id accepts a full URL or bare 11-char ID, query is a case-insensitive substring match, and languages are priority-ordered with a default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 action: search a video's transcript for a keyword/phrase and return matching segments with timestamps. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_transcript and get_video_metadata by focusing on search-within-transcript rather than retrieval of the full transcript or metadata.

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 purpose implies when to use it (when you need to find specific content in a transcript rather than reading the whole transcript), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so the usage context is only implied.

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