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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing asynchronous behavior, the polling trigger ('status is completed'), language-specific model behavior for Kurdish, and billing implications per audio second and per translation. No statement contradicts the annotations.

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 well-organized sentences carry a lot of information without padding. The action and input type are front-loaded, followed by async behavior, language models, quota, and optional translation in a logical flow. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given an output schema exists, an already rich parameter schema, and a clear async workflow, the description covers what an agent needs to know to submit the job correctly and where to fetch the result. Nothing critical is missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by clarifying that audio_url accepts direct file or platform links, explaining that Kurdish languages use a fine-tuned model, and adding billing context for translate_to. This pushes it 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Start a speech-to-text transcription job from a URL'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling tools by defining its input (a URL) and its async submit-only role, and it explicitly names mazdek_transcription_result as the retrieval counterpart.

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?

It gives clear operational context: accepts direct file or platform links, is asynchronous, returns a job_id immediately, and results are fetched via mazdek_transcription_result after status is 'completed'. It also warns about quota consumption. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative transcription-related siblings, but the routing to mazdek_transcription_result is direct.

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