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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the polling/retry pattern and the visibility constraint that it only answers for the conversation or Slice account that started the transcription.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the triggering condition, then the parameter, the retry rule, the scoping caveat, and the negative case. No filler; every sentence carries distinct operational information.

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 documentation is not required, and the description still notes it returns the transcript text. Combined with the annotations and the workflow linkage, an agent has everything needed to poll and consume the result 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by tying the parameter's provenance to the workflow ('pass the transcription_id it returned'), which tells the agent where to obtain the value rather than just its type.

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 and resource (check whether the transcript is finished / get its text) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling transcribe_audio. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and does not do without opening the schema.

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?

Gives the exact trigger condition ('when transcribe_audio returned status "processing"'), the polling instruction ('call it again after a short wait while the status is still "processing"'), and the exclusion ('do not use to start a transcription; use transcribe_audio'). When-to-use, when-to-repeat, and the alternative are all explicit.

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