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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description goes beyond them by explaining the lifecycle behavior: running jobs return status/progress, completed jobs return transcript text, and optional translation is included when requested. It also adds cost/usability guidance with 'Free to call.'

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 concise sentences carry all essential information: what the tool checks, the state-dependent behavior, and the free-to-call cost note. The most important purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.

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, low-complexity polling tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the operational workflow, state handling, and result content. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents job_id as 'The job_id from mazdek_transcribe.' The description does not add new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a transcription job'), and clarifies this is for jobs 'started with mazdek_transcribe'. It distinguishes itself from mazdek_transcribe by describing the polling/result behavior rather than the transcription creation behavior.

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?

Clearly indicates when to use the tool: after starting a transcription job with mazdek_transcribetas, to check status and retrieve results. It does not explicitly list exclusion criteria or alternatives, but the relationship to mazdek_transcribe makes the usage context unambiguous.

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