RiverScript

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the operation is known to be safe. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it only returns public transcripts, works for translations too, and that invalid/non-public links return nothing. This clarifies edge-case behavior the agent needs to set expectations.

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 succinct and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each of the three sentences earns its place: the first defines what it does, the second gives usage scenarios, and the third covers access limitations. No redundant or filler language.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It explains the input, when to invoke it, what it returns, and important boundary conditions (public-only, private/expired/deleted return nothing). The annotations handle safety context, so nothing is missing from the agent's perspective.

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?

The input schema already provides a thorough description for share_link, including an example and a note that bare tokens are accepted (100% schema coverage). The description reinforces the parameter's role ('given its share link') and ties it to usage context, adding modest value over the schema alone.

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 fetches the full text of a publicly shared RiverScript transcript given its share link. It uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('shared transcript') and the input ('share link'), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use: 'when the user pastes a riverscript.com/share/... link, or asks about the contents of one' and lists downstream tasks (summarise, pull quotes, translate). It also provides a when-not constraint: private, expired, or deleted links return nothing, which helps the agent decide when this tool will not be useful.

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