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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered, but the description adds an action-relevant detail the annotations do not: a minimum poll interval that prevents hammering the service. It does not mention terminal states or error behavior, so it falls short of fully rich behavioral disclosure.

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 with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the polling constraint follows immediately. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and the polling guidance plus read semantics cover the core usage loop. The gap is the missing link to transcribe_selection (how the id is produced), which an agent working from a cold start would have to infer.

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 0% for the single transcription_id parameter, so the description is the only source of meaning. It implies the id refers to a 'selected-clip transcription', but does not say where to obtain the UUID or what happens with an unknown id. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, keeping this at a baseline 3.

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+resource pair ('Read selected-clip transcription status/text'), which is far more informative than the bare tool name. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the write-side sibling transcribe_selection by framing itself as a read, but it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 polling cadence ('at least 5 seconds apart') tells the agent how to use the tool once it has an id, which is real operational guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call it versus transcribe_selection, nor where the transcription_id comes from.

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