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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the annotations already flag this as a non-destructive but state-changing operation, and the description usefully confirms that by naming the receipt that gets written. The 100-word cap is a genuine disclosure not present in any structured field. It stops short of explaining what the 'certified decode interval' is, what happens if the word span exceeds 100 words, or how the commandId retry semantics interact with idempotentHint=false.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the deliverable before the side effect. It is dense with domain jargon but structurally efficient rather than padded.

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?

This is a state-mutating tool taking a nested range/wordSpan body with no output schema to explain the result, and the description leaves the return shape, the meaning of 'certified decode interval', and the range-identity requirements unspecified. For a nested-object mutation with only 67% schema coverage, more disclosure is needed to call it correctly.

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 67% and the gaps are exactly the ones that matter: body.wordSpan's [start, exclusive-end] semantics, the frames/timebase/representationIdentity bundle for range, and what runId must refer to. The description only echoes the word cap and says nothing about any of these three parameters, so it fails to compensate for the coverage shortfall.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('Deliver ... verified transcript words with their mapped certified decode interval') plus a side effect ('save a transcript evidence receipt'), so the agent knows roughly what comes out. It does not distinguish this from adjacent siblings like get_transcript or editorial_inspect_audio, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why it would pick this over those.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. Nothing says whether a run must already exist (the required runId implies it, but that is inference), nor when to prefer this over get_transcript or editorial_inspect_audio. Usage must be guessed entirely from the name and siblings.

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