search_transcriptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the search is scoped to a bounded window of recent transcriptions, results are capped, and thus `found: false` does not prove absence while `matchesReturned` is not a library-wide count. This directly prevents agent misinterpretation of results.

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-loads what the tool does, then the result shape, then the caveats, with no filler. The final clause is a dense run-on packing two distinct caveats, but both earn their place for a tool whose failure mode is a misleading empty result.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return contract itself: newest match returned in full plus ids of other matches, with explicit meaning for `found` and `matchesReturned`. Combined with annotations and a fully documented single param, nothing needed to call or interpret the tool is missing.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; however the description adds real semantics beyond the schema by specifying that matching is substring containment against the *original* video URL, not exact equality. That clarifies how to formulate the input value.

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 (find/search) plus resource (transcriptions) and the exact matching rule (original video URL contains the given string). It is clearly distinguishable from get_transcription (fetch a known one), list_transcriptions (enumerate), and transcribe_video (create one).

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?

Gives explicit usage context: 'Useful for checking whether a video has already been transcribed.' It even clarifies the semantics of a negative result, which is a usage-level caveat. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or stating when-not-to-use, so it is strong but not a 5.

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