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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it runs as an async task, produces word timings and script-difference output, and carries explicit cost (0.05 credit/min, 0.1 minimum) – pricing and async semantics that annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler: the core operation and output are front-loaded, followed by the cost detail. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 5-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers operation, output shape, async nature, and pricing. The one gap is not indicating how the async result is retrieved (e.g., via composer_task_status), but this is a minor omission rather than a blocking one.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only indirect meaning (script diffs, word timings) and does not elaborate on parameter syntax or formats beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Transcribes) and resource (clip or track), names the engine (ElevenLabs Scribe), and specifies the deliverable (word timings plus script diffs). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like composer_voice_line or composer_generate_clip 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?

Usage is implied by the phrasing ("when one is given" for scripts), but it never states when to choose this over alternatives such as composer_voice_line, nor any prerequisite like providing a voiceover first. Adequate context, no explicit exclusions.

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