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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds deprecation context and the fact that it is a backward-compatibility alias, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not add details about return format or pagination, but for a deprecated alias that is identical to a sibling, this is reasonable. The description adds useful behavioral context without contradicting 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?

The description is brief and front-loads the deprecation warning, which is the most actionable information. However, there is slight redundancy: 'Alias kept for backward compatibility' and 'Identical behavior to transcribe_status' convey overlapping information. Still, it is efficient overall, with no unnecessary filler or excessive length.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent the tool is deprecated, points to the replacement, and states it behaves identically. There is no missing information that an agent needs to decide whether to use this tool, and the low complexity means fewer gaps to fill.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, transcription_id, with a clear description ('The transcription ID (UUID).'). The description does not add any parameter-specific information, but it is not needed given the full schema coverage. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the parameter meaning, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a deprecated alias for transcribe_status, and states 'Identical behavior to transcribe_status.' This makes the purpose unambiguous to anyone familiar with the sibling, but it does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'get transcription status') in its own right. It distinguishes itself from the active tool and other siblings by pointing to the replacement, so it is clear what it is not, but the actual function is implied rather than stated outright.

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 explicitly instructs to use 'transcribe_status instead' and notes the deprecation timeline ('Will be removed in 2.0.0'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and names the alternative directly. There is no ambiguity about which tool should be selected.

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