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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's value-add is the ordering dependency and the pagination-until-exhausted behavior, which it does disclose. It stops short of saying what a truncated/absent page looks like, so it is good but not complete.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the prerequisite and then the loop; nothing is padded. The closing 'then answer from the full text' is task coaching rather than tool guidance, a minor bit of non-essential content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description correctly focuses on sequencing and pagination, the non-obvious parts. The unstated identity of 'next_offset' relative to the schema's 'offset' is the remaining gap for an agent driving the loop.

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 id, format, offset and max_chars are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds pagination semantics but refers to 'next_offset', a field that does not exist in the input schema (which uses 'offset'), which risks confusing which parameter to advance.

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 never explicitly says what the tool returns; the reader must infer from the name 'get_transcript' and the phrase 'answer from the full text' that it fetches transcription text. It does implicitly separate itself from get_job by saying to use it after get_job reports done, so the purpose is recoverable but not stated.

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 names the prerequisite tool and condition ('after get_job shows done') and gives an explicit pagination loop ('keep calling with next_offset until it's absent'). That is a clear when-to-use rule with a named alternative, leaving little to inference.

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