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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation and an open world. The description adds useful behavioral context by highlighting the single-upload, all-in-one nature and the composition of the response. It does not contradict the annotations, though it omits details like upload format, size limits, or processing behavior.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists the outputs in a scannable series. No words are wasted, and the 'all in one request and one upload' qualifier adds meaningful differentiation rather than 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?

Given poor input schema coverage and minimal annotations, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It explains the high-level outcome but leaves critical invocation details—especially the semantics of the language parameter and expected audio input—unspecified. The output schema may cover return values, but the input side remains underdocumented.

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 0%, so the description bears full responsibility for parameter meaning, but it only indirectly refers to the audio as a 'recording' and 'one upload'. The 'language' parameter is never mentioned, and no guidance is given on accepted formats, language codes, or defaults, leaving the agent to guess.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Summarise a long recording') and enumerates the deliverables: summary, full transcript, tone, speaker profile, and who spoke when. The phrase 'all in one request and one upload' distinguishes it from single-purpose siblings like transcribe_audio and identify_speakers.

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 description implies when this tool is appropriate—when a combined summary, transcript, tone, and speaker breakdown is needed in one call. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as transcribe_audio for transcription-only needs, leaving usage mostly to inference.

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