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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: this tool does not itself upload but returns a curl command for the client to run, and without a speaker argument it silently degrades to listing speakers and word counts only. That fallback behavior is not inferable from any structured field.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with what the tool returns before parameter notes. The stray indentation is cosmetic, and nearly every sentence carries information, though the audience sentence could be tighter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. For a read-only, 4-parameter tool the description covers purpose, the client-execution model, the speaker fallback, and all parameters — enough to call it correctly. Only the sibling-routing guidance is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden and largely meets it: path is a full local path with supported extensions (.docx, .txt, .md, .vtt), speaker is the label to analyse, name is the person's name when the label is generic, and role is 'answering' or 'asking'. Minor gaps remain — 'name' is only loosely defined and role's exact semantics are thin — but it materially compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: returns a curl command that uploads a local transcript file to FounderBrain for analysis. It also scopes the audience ('clients that run commands on the user's own computer'), which implicitly separates it from server-side siblings, but it never names analyse_transcript or check_transcript, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 gives a usage condition — only for clients like Claude Code and Codex that execute commands locally — which is more than nothing. However, it never says when to prefer this over analyse_transcript or check_transcript, so the agent must guess from the environment description alone.

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