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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive behavior, and closed-world scope, but the description adds important behavioral context: the transcript words go to the view only, shownInView is true, and the result carries title and length. This clarifies the side effect and result shape beyond what annotations provide.

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 definition is front-loaded with purpose and scope, then follows with examples, view behavior, and the sibling alternative. Each sentence contributes useful selection or invocation context without bloat.

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 simple, the parameter schema is fully documented, annotations cover safety traits, and an output schema exists. The description still adds the key view-specific behavior and the get_transcript routing guidance, so an agent has enough context to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

There is one required parameter, sessionId, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines it as the recording id returned by list_recordings or search_recordings. The description confirms the tool operates on one recording, but adds no meaningful syntax or format details beyond the schema baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it shows the full transcript of one recording to the user in a Kalima view with speakers and timestamps. It also distinguishes the display use case from reading/quoting/summarising by naming get_transcript as the sibling alternative.

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 gives clear usage signals, including example phrases like "show me the transcript" and "zeig mir das Transkript meiner letzten Besprechung." It also explicitly states when not to use this tool: to read, quote or summarise, use get_transcript.

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