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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds 'bounded window' to indicate pagination/limiting behavior, which is useful context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and clearly states the two output forms, making it 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 a 4-parameter schema fully described, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description provides adequate context. It might slightly under-explain the three modes, but the schema's mode enum descriptions fill that gap sufficiently.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including mode, limit, offset, and assetId. The description's reference to 'summary metadata or bounded window' loosely maps to mode but adds no concrete parameter details beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 clearly states the tool gets transcript summary metadata or a bounded window of transcription segments for a video asset, using a specific verb ('Get') and identifying the resource and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling media tools, none of which handle transcripts.

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 context implies this is the tool for retrieving transcript data from a video asset, with no sibling transcript tools offering an alternative. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the clarity of purpose and lack of transcript siblings provide sufficient usage guidance.

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