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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, which cover the non-mutating nature. The description adds beyond this by documenting output structure, language auto-detection, diarization behavior, and metadata/quality metrics, enriching the agent's understanding without contradicting the 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?

The description is organized with clear Args and Returns sections, front-loading the core purpose. It is somewhat verbose but every detail, including the return structure, earns its place given the absence of an output schema. The structure aids readability without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple formats, language support, diarization, rich output), the description is comprehensive. It covers parameter formats, defaults, return types, and behavioral nuances, fully compensating for the lack of an output schema and leaving no obvious gap 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?

While the input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, the tool description goes further by explaining auto-detection of language, the effect of diarize on speaker labels, supported audio formats, and the detailed return dictionary. This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema, especially since there is no output 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 begins with 'Transcribe audio with Brainiall Speech Pro' and immediately distinguishes itself from the basic sibling 'transcribe_audio' by detailing advanced features such as multilingual support, diarization, and confidence scores. This gives a specific verb, resource, and capability set that unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the basic 'transcribe_audio' sibling. It does not state conditions, exclusions, or recommendation criteria, leaving the agent to infer that the 'Pro' variant is for advanced needs without clear direction.

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