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

The annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it lists the possible statuses, reports readiness/failure counts, and states that polling is free. This exceeds what annotations alone provide without contradicting them.

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, each earning its place: one for purpose/outputs, one for cost behavior, and one for directing to the results tool. Key details are front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 progress tool with an output schema present, this is complete. It covers what is checked, what statuses to expect, what counts are returned, the cost implication, and where to go for the actual transcript content.

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 already fully describes the single parameter job_id as 'id returned by submit_transcripts_job' (100% coverage). The description adds no further parameter-specific semantics, so the schema carries the burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Check the progress of a batch job' — and enumerates the exact outputs (status, ready, failed, pending), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from fetching transcripts.

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 clearly tells the agent when to use this tool (for batch progress polling) and points to the correct alternative for transcript content: 'Read the transcripts themselves with get_transcripts_results.' It does not explicitly contrast with cancel_transcripts_job or get_transcripts_result, but the core usage path is clear.

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