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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false reflecting credit consumption, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the pricing model and the refund-on-failure guarantee, which an agent needs before spending credits. It does not mention latency, length limits, or failure modes, so it is strong but not complete.

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 front-loaded sentence delivering output shape, cost, and refund policy with zero 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming what comes back (transcript plus SRT/VTT links) and what it costs. Missing only edge-case behavior such as unsupported URLs or processing time for a 2-param, open-world tool.

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 100%, so both url and language are already documented. The description only repeats the link notion ('by link') and says nothing about the language parameter's fallback behavior, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Full transcript of a video by link') plus the artifacts returned ('SRT/VTT links'), which clearly separates it from download_video or create_clips. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, so it is clear but not differentiating by contrast.

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 rather than stated: an agent infers 'use this when you have a video link and need text'. The credit cost (8 + 4/min) is a useful decision input, but no when-not conditions or alternatives (e.g., create_clips, analyze_post) are named.

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