search_segments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive status. The description adds specific behavioral constraints (config cannot cross language boundaries, ephemeral audio URLs) that go beyond the annotations, providing some useful context, though limited in scope.

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 concise (two sentences) but not front-loaded with a clear purpose. The first sentence is vague, and the second adds peripheral constraints without enriching the core definition.

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?

For a search tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description lacks essential context about search semantics, parameter combinations, and result interpretation. It does not suffice to guide correct usage without additional documentation.

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 60%, and the description does not clarify the remaining parameters. The mention of config overrides hints at the config parameter but does not map parameters to their roles, leaving agents to infer meaning from names and schema defaults.

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 the verb 'Search' and a resource ('a schema-verified variant'), but 'variant' is ambiguous and not tied to the tool's name 'segments'. It does not clearly explain what is searched or what results look like, offering only a weak distinction from 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like filter_segments or compare_corpora. The notes about config overrides and audio URLs are operational constraints, not usage direction.

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