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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false) by disclosing cost (duration/60 plan minutes), the additive-but-non-destructive effect (new recording, original preserved), ownership and run-state preconditions. Retry semantics via requestId are also spelled out. Only a small gap remains around how the new recording relates to the original (e.g., linkage in list_transcripts).

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then layered constraints and finally retry guidance – a sensible order. It is dense with six sentences, but each carries a distinct rule (cost, verification, permission, state, merge behavior, idempotency) rather than 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Given a 4-parameter nested schema, the description supplies every operational fact an agent needs: cost model, consent requirement, precondition checks, ownership, merge behavior, and retry discipline.

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 75% and already documents id and most settings, but the description adds the merge semantics ('Omitted settings keep the source values') and the requestId retry contract (reuse same ID and arguments), which are the two parameters most likely to be misused. Nested settings fields like customPrompt and importantTerms remain undocumented in prose.

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 ('Run an existing recording again') and immediately distinguishes it from upload-based siblings by noting it works 'without uploading its audio again'. It also clarifies the side effect: a new recording is created while the original transcript is preserved.

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?

Explicitly names prerequisites and alternatives: use get_transcript and get_account to check duration and allowance, and only the owner may call it, and only after the current run finishes or fails. It also states a user-consent step (explain minute consumption and agree changes) before calling, which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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