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

Annotations declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the call returns a job handle immediately (asynchronous), it cannot ingest media itself, and an unlisted policy category is rejected rather than silently ignored. Missing details on job duration, concurrency limits, or failure modes keep it short of a 5.

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?

Five sentences, each front-loaded with a distinct operational fact (start, fetch, input source, download, review). Some phrasing repeats the schema text for audioFileUrl, which is the only real slack.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself: a job handle now, and transcript/entity list/redactedAudio.fileId later via get_job. Combined with the input and review guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it and follow up.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds non-schema context: a local-file caller must upload via the web app before calling, and omitting policies yields the default set. Much of the audioFileUrl wording duplicates the schema description, so this is not maximal.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Start an audio PII-redaction job for a recording already stored in this organization.' An agent can distinguish this from siblings like bg_remover or speaker_separation and cannot confuse it with a generic job tool.

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 routes the agent: find the file via list_files with mimeCategory "audio", fetch results later with get_job, download the bleeped copy with get_file_download_url. It also states a hard precondition (no media upload; upload in the web app first) and a human-review requirement.

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