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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior: the SRT is returned only once finished, but it omits what happens while pending, whether errors are surfaced, and how waiting affects the call. With annotations carrying safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single tight sentence front-loads the core action and result. It is not padded, though it is terse enough to leave behavioral gaps.

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 read-only polling/retrieval tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It should explain return behavior when the job is still pending and clarify what 'once finished' means for the caller.

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 documents wait_seconds in detail, including the pending fallback. The description mentions the job being checked but does not explain job_id or the wait behavior itself. With 50% schema description coverage and one trivial required identifier, the schema does most of the work and baseline 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?

States a specific action and resource: checking a transcribe_media job and retrieving its SRT. It connects to the sibling transcribe_media tool and distinguishes the result (SRT) from a generic job detail. Sibling differentiation from get_job_status is implied but not explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Check a transcribe_media job', meaning this is the follow-up call after transcription. It does not explicitly say when to use get_job_status or get_job_detail instead, nor does it state exclusions or preconditions.

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