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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It discloses the multi-step payment flow, presigned URL expiry (1h), idempotency ('Retrying any call with job_id alone returns current state'), auto-refund on failure, and details the exact output roles and formats. This is exceptionally transparent for a complex tool.

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then the flow, then formats, pricing, and edge cases. It avoids fluff and uses structured lists (numbered steps, pipe-separated formats). Slightly longer than minimal but appropriately dense for the tool's complexity.

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 the three-call flow, no output schema, and multiple formats, the description covers everything an agent needs: the exact call sequence, parameter usage, output formats via get_job_status, pricing table reference, idempotency, and refunds. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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% and each parameter already has a description, but the tool description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: filename infers media type, payment_credential is the full Authorization header value, and job_id alone recovers state if the response was lost. It explains how each parameter fits into the three-call flow, substantially enriching semantics.

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 pair ('Transcribe audio or video to text') and immediately distinguishes itself by noting per-word timestamps for precise editing. It also names the three-call flow and output formats, clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like get_job_status or edit_from_transcript without requiring schema inspection.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases: 'podcasts, interviews, meetings, lectures, and especially for creating clips, multicamera edits, or edit-video-from-transcript where word boundaries matter.' It also prescribes the sequential calls to other tools (complete_upload, get_job_status). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name an alternative tool for other cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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