search_transcript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool returns matching segments with timestamps and surrounding context, which is useful. However, it does not mention behavior on no matches, case sensitivity, language handling quirks, or any potential errors or limitations.

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 no filler. The action is front-loaded and the output detail is concise yet informative. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and what it returns.

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 simple three-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description gives sufficient return-value information. It lacks explicit edge-case behavior and alternative routing, but those are partially covered by other dimensions. An agent can reasonably understand how to invoke it and what to expect.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's phrase 'keyword or phrase' adds no new semantic detail beyond what the query parameter description already says. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('search') and resource ('a YouTube video's transcript'), and clarifies the output ('matching segments with timestamps and surrounding context'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_transcript, which returns the full transcript, and search_videos, which searches across videos rather than within a single transcript.

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 intended use is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_transcript, get_clean_transcript, or search_within_channel. No exclusions or 'when not to use' conditions are provided.

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