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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. It adds context beyond the annotations by naming the segmentation knobs and the required completed status and API key, which clarify the state and auth needed.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words: purpose, options, and prerequisites are each addressed. The most important information is front-loaded, and nothing from the schema is unnecessarily repeated.

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 an export tool with 8 fully documented schema parameters, the description provides the key missing context: output formats, segmentation controls, and required state/auth. It does not spell out the exact response shape, but the format list and read-only annotations make the behavior sufficiently clear for an agent to 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds a small layer of meaning by grouping `max_words`, `max_chars`, `max_duration`, `sentence_aware`, `include_speakers`, and `strip_chars` as 'segmentation knobs.' It does not explain the parameters in detail, but this grouping helps an agent understand their shared purpose.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('completed Scriptivox transcript') and names the three concrete output formats (SRT, WebVTT, text). It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_transcript_audio, relying on the format list to imply distinction.

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 gives explicit prerequisites: the transcription must be in `completed` status and an API key must be configured. This tells an agent when calling is valid, though it does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use this tool.

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