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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the call is free, polling cadence, terminal states, and the categories of returned data.

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 tight sentences with no wasted language. The return contents, cost, and polling instruction are front-loaded, and the sentence 'Free.' earns its place by clarifying billing behavior.

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 one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it names the return categories, terminal states, polling cadence, and cost. Annotations cover safety, and no additional information is 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?

There is only one parameter, jobId, and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already states it is the job ID from submit_transcription. The description does not add further syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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+resource (get transcription job information) and enumerates exactly what it returns: progress, ready video IDs, skipped videos, and remaining credits. This clearly distinguishes it from get_transcript (transcript content retrievals), submit_transcription (job creation), and the video-listing siblings.

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 clear operational guidance: poll every few seconds until the job is completed, partial, or failed. This tells the agent the intended use pattern and terminal conditions, though it does not explicitly name when to switch to get_transcript or other siblings.

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