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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context beyond that: it waits up to 240 seconds per call, does not trigger reprocessing, and warns against duplicate submission. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that states the purpose first, then the key behavioral constraints (240s wait, no reprocessing, no resubmission). Zero waste and easy to parse.

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 one simple parameter, an output schema, and readOnlyHint annotations, the description covers the critical operational details: timeout behavior, reentrancy (same job_id), and resubmission warning. Nothing essential 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the same job_id should be passed unchanged when the task isn't complete, but this is already largely captured in the schema's parameter description. The description adds marginal value here.

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 (查询/query) with a distinct resource (video speech-to-text task) keyed by job_id. It clearly differentiates itself from the submit siblings (x_submit_video_speech_text_by_post_url / by_post_id) by focusing on querying an existing task rather than creating one.

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?

It tells the agent when to use it — querying a job using a user-provided or submit-returned job_id — and explicitly says not to resubmit the task. It doesn't name alternatives explicitly, but the submit siblings are implied as the source of the job_id, giving clear context.

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