Search SGU transcripts

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return format (pages with snippets, episode number, wiki URL) and source (transcripts and topic pages). Does not mention potential side effects or limitations, but read-only nature is clear.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences: first defines scope, second provides examples and output structure. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite missing output schema, description fully explains return fields (pages with snippets, episode number, wiki URL). For a simple search tool with two parameters, this is complete and avoids ambiguity.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions; description adds context that query supports MediaWiki syntax and that limit defaults to 10, which exceeds schema info. Baseline 3 due to 100% coverage, but value added justifies 4.

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 states 'Full-text search across all SGU episode transcripts and topic pages' with specific verb and resource. It gives example queries and output details, clearly distinguishing from siblings like search_episodes or semantic_search.

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?

Provides example use cases ('every time they discussed CRISPR'), implying appropriate queries, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or how it differs from similar siblings like search_episodes or search_segments.

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