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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals the tool is an async submission that waits up to 240 seconds and returns a job_id with a next query action when incomplete. Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, so this behavior disclosure is valuable and not contradictory.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the main action, then adds the critical timeout and fallback behavior. There is no filler or redundant information.

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?

For a one-parameter async submission tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the task, the wait limit, and the job_id handoff for incomplete results. It could be slightly more explicit about the completed-case response and the exact sibling for querying the job, but those are inferable from the schema and sibling names.

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 schema itself provides detailed semantics for video_id: 11-character ID, use from search results, and do not pass links. The tool description only restates 'video_id' without adding semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('提交'), a specific resource ('口播转文字任务' / speech-to-text task), and a specific input basis ('根据 YouTube video_id'). It also distinguishes itself from the by-URL sibling by emphasizing video_id, and clarifies the async submission behavior.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you have a YouTube video_id and need to submit a speech-to-text job. It also explains the post-submission flow (wait up to 240 seconds, then receive job_id if not complete). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the by-URL sibling is easily inferable from the naming.

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