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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses important behavioral traits: immediate quota consumption, return of a websocket_url, required streaming protocol (PCM16 mono 16kHz), and session duration limits. It also warns about the side effect of consuming quota, making the tool's behavior highly transparent.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second is a critical warning, and the third conveys necessary protocol details. Every sentence adds unique value with no fluff or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 tool is complex (live streaming), and the description covers the key aspects: return value (websocket_url), data format (PCM16 mono 16kHz), and control messages (finalize/done). However, it does not specify what the websocket will send back (e.g., transcription events), which would be useful given no output schema. Still, it is mostly complete for an agent to start using the tool.

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 both parameters (dialect, context) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add extra meaning for these parameters; it focuses on the overall session behavior, not parameter semantics. Thus the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Start a live streaming speech-to-text session') and resource, and the title adds 'Kurdish', making it specific. It is distinct from siblings like transcribe_audio, which presumably handles non-live audio, and from list_dialects/synthesize_speech, so purpose is unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'only call it when you are ready to connect' due to quota consumption. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the warning and focus on live streaming imply appropriate usage, warranting a 4 rather than a 5.

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