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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is not carrying that burden. It adds real context beyond them: only 'finished' items are returned, translations from RiverScript are included, and the returned fields are named in the absence of an output schema. It does not disclose pagination or ordering behavior beyond 'most recent'.

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 sentences, zero waste: the first defines scope and payload, the second defines when to use it and what to do next. Front-loaded and nothing redundant.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, returned fields, and the downstream tool. No output schema exists, yet return contents are described, so nothing material is missing.

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 100%, so from/to/limit are already fully documented with formats, defaults, and maximums. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb + resource + scope: it lists the user's 'most recent finished transcripts, including translations made in RiverScript,' and enumerates the returned fields (titles, dates, languages, durations). It names get_transcript as the follow-up tool, but does not distinguish itself from the closest sibling, search_transcripts, which would leave an agent guessing between the two for filtered lookups.

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?

States clear usage contexts ('see what the user has, or find one by when it was made') and prescribes the next step ('fetch the one you need with get_transcript'). It gives no exclusion guidance, however — nothing tells the agent when search_transcripts is the better choice instead.

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