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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is covered. The description adds concrete behavior: waits up to 240 seconds and returns a job_id if incomplete. However, it does not disclose what happens on success (e.g., immediate transcript return) or any side effects like cost or rate limits, which are relevant given the mutable nature.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence packs the core action, wait duration, and fallback behavior with zero redundancy. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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?

The description covers the essential flow (submit, wait, get job) and references a follow-up query action, which is helpful given the output schema exists to document returns. However, it omits any mention of when to choose this post_id variant over the post_url sibling, which is a significant gap for an agent selecting between them. It also doesn't clarify whether a video must exist on the post.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the post_id parameter is well-described (long ID, reuse sources). The description merely repeats 'post_id' without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('submit'), resource ('video speech-to-text task'), and identifier ('post_id'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling by_post_url variant through the explicit mention of post_id, and the name reinforces it. No ambiguity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs the sibling weibo_submit_video_speech_text_by_post_url, nor does it mention prerequisites or follow-up steps beyond a vague '下一步查询动作'. It fails to explicitly state that this variant is for post_id while the other is for URL, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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