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

Annotations already mark this as not read-only and not idempotent, so the description correctly implies a mutation. Beyond that, it adds specific behavioral details: it only processes the first available MP4 of the post, waits up to 240 seconds, and returns a job_id with a next-step query action. This is valuable context not present in annotations and matches the open-world hint.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and embeds all key constraints (first MP4, 240s wait, job_id handoff). No filler or repetition; the sentence earns its length by packing critical behavior flags into a compact structure.

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 full call flow: submit, wait, and on timeout return a job_id plus a pointer to the next query. Given the output schema exists (to define return structures) and the sibling x_get_video_speech_text_job handles the follow-up, the description provides an agent with everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and know what to expect.

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?

The schema description for post_id is thorough (100% coverage), explaining exactly where to source the ID and the required numeric-string format. The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides—it only reiterates 'based on post_id.' Since the schema carries the full burden, a 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?

The description states a clear action (submit a speech-to-text task) on a specific resource (video post identified by post_id) and adds explicit constraints (only the first MP4 of the post, a 240-second wait). This distinguishes it from the sibling x_submit_video_speech_text_by_post_url, which uses a URL instead of an ID, so an agent can immediately tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 makes it clear this tool is for post_id input, and the naming contrasts with the URL-based sibling. It also signals a follow-up step ('下一步查询动作') implying use of x_get_video_speech_text_job for status. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over the URL variant, though the ID/URL distinction is implicit. No when-not guidance is given, but the context is sufficient for most agents.

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