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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds the terminal vs. non-terminal status contract and the repeat-polling expectation, which is exactly the behavior an agent needs. It doesn't say what 'retrieve results' actually returns on completion or whether 'failed' carries error detail.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, then the return contract, then the polling instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does so by enumerating the four statuses and telling the agent when to stop polling. What's missing is a brief note on what a completed result contains or whether a failed status includes diagnostic information.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage. The description reinforces its semantics by specifying that the same id must be reused across polls, which adds operational meaning beyond the schema's 'job id returned by supadata_transcript'.

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 and resource ('Check transcript job status and retrieve results') and enumerates the possible outcomes, which is more than a restatement of the title. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the crawl/extract status siblings by naming the transcript job resource, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete, actionable polling guidance: if status is not 'completed' or 'failed', call again after a few seconds with the same id. It doesn't explicitly state the prerequisite (that the id comes from starting a transcript job) in the description body, but the conditional loop is clear and correct.

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