Transcript Search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the search operates over subject/description/transcript body, supports optional vector/hybrid modes, and is scoped to ingested transcripts. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only or return format.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope. No redundant wording; every clause adds information.

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 tool has 9 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the search scope and modes but does not describe the return value or result shape. While limit/offset in the schema imply pagination, the description leaves the output unspecified, which is a notable gap for a search tool.

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 78%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying the full-text fields (subject/description/transcript body) and the OpenAI embedding prerequisite for vector/hybrid, which supplements the schema's mode descriptions. This elevates the score above the baseline.

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 'Search previously-persisted Meet transcripts' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting 'not live from Google' and scoping to 'ingested by the watcher or backfill', which clearly separates it from MeetTranscriptGet/List and TranscriptList.

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 clear context for when to use: searching already-persisted transcripts, not live ones. It also notes vector/hybrid only when OpenAI embeddings are configured. While it doesn't name sibling tools explicitly, the 'not live from Google' exclusion and persistence scope imply alternatives.

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