Search transcript clips

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: semantic/hybrid modes can silently fall back to keyword, and callers should inspect search-mode metadata and passage verification before quoting. It also warns that coarse timing is attached to cue start for long cues. It doesn't discuss result ordering or empty-result behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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-loaded with purpose, then routing, then behavioral caveats — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. A few clauses are terse to the point of being cryptic ('Long source cues keep coarse timing and link to the cue start'), costing a bit of clarity.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return shape (ranked snippets, timing, source links, search-mode metadata). For a 6-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage this is nearly complete; only result ordering and pagination behavior are left unstated.

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 100% and the mode/limit/match descriptions already explain fallback behavior and bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the timing/cue-start nuance, which loosens beyond what the schema states but doesn't clarify query, channel, or video_id semantics further.

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 and resource — 'Find transcript windows in saved items' — and immediately enumerates what comes back (timing, source links, ranked snippets). It distinguishes itself from both search_uoinks (whole items) and search_library (bounded clip-first results with resource URIs), so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names the condition that selects this tool ('Use to locate quotable passages') and names two alternatives with the conditions that favor each. Both a when-to-use and a when-to-use-something-else are present.

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