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

Annotations cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantially more: page caps of 20 segments and 12000 UTF-16 units, cursor and char_offset continuation semantics, privacy redaction, retained timestamp metadata, stable ordering, live-pagination cursor invalidation, and explicit failure on oversized segments. These are behavioral traits the annotations cannot express.

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 most important differentiator (final transcript vs AI-edited sermon) is front-loaded, and every sentence carries distinct information. However, it is delivered as one dense multi-clause block, which is heavier than necessary for readability.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description still thoroughly covers pagination mechanics, limits, ordering, redaction, and failure modes. For a two-parameter paged read tool, an agent has everything 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining how next_cursor invalidates under live edits and how long segments continue via char_offset. That adds real operational meaning for the cursor parameter.

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+resource ('Returns saved final transcript segments') and immediately scopes it ('from an ended or interrupted public session') while naming what it is not ('rather than an AI-edited sermon section'), which cleanly separates it from get_sermon. An agent can select this tool without opening the 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?

The contrast with an AI-edited sermon section gives clear implied routing, and the schema-backed precondition (ended/interrupted public sessions only) frames when the tool applies. It stops short of an explicit 'use X instead when' clause naming get_sermon directly, so it lands just below the top band.

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