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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds that this operates on the signed-in person's library, returns results newest first, is read-only, and requires an OAuth 2.1 user access token. This is valuable context about data scope, ordering, and authentication that is not present in the annotations or schema.

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 information-dense but efficient: purpose and filters are front-loaded, followed by practical routing guidance, a sibling distinction, and the auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place and no content is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

Given the full schema coverage, the read-only/idempotent annotations, and the explicit note that the returned transcription IDs feed several sibling tools, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and call this tool correctly. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear statement that this is the source for transcription IDs and by the mention of newest-first ordering.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mentions the filter categories ('folder, tag, workspace, status or filename') but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It correctly implies the query parameter matches filenames, but the schema already says this.

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: 'Find transcripts in the signed-in person's library,' and enumerates the filtering dimensions. It also explicitly differentiates itself from list_transcriptions by stating what that sibling does instead. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 explicitly says this is where transcription IDs for several named sibling tools should come from ('start here'), giving concrete when-to-use guidance. It also provides a when-not-to-use case by explaining that list_transcriptions is a different API-key-based operation for metered jobs.

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