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

Annotations already indicate this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations, including that it is meant for polling long-running jobs and that a configured API key is required, which helps the agent understand the operational context.

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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by concrete use cases and a necessary auth prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only status check, the description is complete enough: it identifies the input, the situations to call it, and the auth requirement. It does not describe the exact shape of status responses, but with no output schema and a simple operation, an agent has sufficient guidance 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing transcription_id as returned from transcribe_url or transcribe_upload. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the schema carries the full burden and 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 description states a clear action ('Check the status') and a specific resource ('a Scriptivox transcription job'). It does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling 'transcription_status', so it loses the top point, but the core purpose is immediately understandable.

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 conditions for use: long-running transcriptions, after a timeout, or to verify completion. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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