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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses an auth prerequisite ('Requires a configured API key') and a non-obvious response trait ('The full transcript body is omitted'). These are meaningful behavioral constraints that shape whether an agent should call this tool to get content, and there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 short sentences, all informative: purpose/features, body-omission warning and alternative, and prerequisite. There is no filler, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 six-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description covers scope, filters, pagination, auth, and the body/alternative. It stops short of naming the exact response envelope or cursor field name, but the cursor-pagination mention plus the schema's cursor/limit definitions make the contract sufficiently clear.

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 all six parameters are already documented. The description's 'status/date filters and cursor pagination' groups the parameters into use cases but does not add substantial semantic detail beyond the schema's own field descriptions, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence states an exact operation ('List') and resource ('transcriptions') plus scope ('for the configured API key'). It also signals key behaviors—status/date filters and cursor pagination—and by saying the full body is omitted, it differentiates the tool from content-reading endpoints such as transcribe_status.

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 clear context: use this to enumerate transcriptions with date/status filters and pagination, and it explicitly routes full-body reads to transcribe_status. It does not fully spell out when list_transcriptions should be preferred over search_transcripts or other sibling list tools, but the explicit alternative and optional filters cover the main routing decision.

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