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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: returns a job handle immediately (async), costs 2 credits per run, and guarantees the minutes and transcript jobs are never changed or deleted. This clarifies the destructiveHint=false / idempotentHint=false annotations in concrete terms.

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?

Front-loads the async return pattern, then the input contract, then the assurance about sources and cost. Every sentence carries distinct, necessary information 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?

With no output schema present, the description correctly compensates by stating the immediate return (a job handle) and how to obtain results (get_job), plus cost and side-effect guarantees. An agent has everything 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions already explain the required-with relationship for each parameter, so the description largely restates it. The added detail about chaining provenance is helpful but not beyond what the structured fields convey.

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 ('Start a quote-check job') and describes exactly what gets checked (quotes, decisions, action items against the labeled transcript). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like meeting_summarizer and speaker_separation by naming them as upstream dependencies.

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 an explicit either/or invocation contract (sourceJobId OR summary + transcriptJobId), specifies the required upstream job states ('completed meeting_summarizer job that chained from speaker_separation'), and routes the agent to get_job for retrieving findings later.

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