Search within transcript

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance: it may transcribe new content or reuse existing captions, and it returns matching segments. This goes beyond the structured annotations and informs the agent about underlying processing behavior.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second provides a concrete use case with a sibling tool reference. It is optimally concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and how to follow up (video_get_frame). It implies that returned segments include timestamps. It does not explicitly describe the exact output structure, but the response_format parameter and the reference to timestamps make it sufficient for agent use. Minor gaps like potential transcription delay are not critical.

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 high (75%) with query and source already well-described. The description adds the 'case-insensitive' detail for query semantics, which is not present in the schema. This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema alone, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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's function: transcribe (or reuse captions) and return segments matching a query string. It specifies the case-insensitive nature and distinguishes itself from sibling video_transcribe by adding search capability. The verb+resource+search operation is precise and unambiguous.

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 specific usage context: 'Useful for long videos' and suggests pairing with video_get_frame. It implies the alternative (video_transcribe) by distinguishing the search functionality, but does not explicitly name it or state when not to use this tool. However, the guidance is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate context.

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