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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the description gets credit for adding the failure mode when no transcript exists and the Cotlet API key auth requirement. It also discloses the return shape (speaker order, timestamps), which goes beyond the safety annotations, though it omits error and pagination details.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core return description and keeps each functional detail in a short sentence. The opening 'Riverside: The transcript...' fragment partially restates the title, but the rest is efficient and earns its place.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the return contents, format guidance, failure condition, and auth requirement. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% and the enum/default are fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining when to use each format value (subtitle files vs plain reading), pushing it to a 4.

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 names a specific verb (returns) and resource (transcript) and specifies content such as speaker names, timestamps, and speaker order. It does not name or distinguish itself from sibling tools like riverside_get_recording, so it stops short of a 5 under the rubric.

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 offers parameter-level usage guidance (srt for subtitle files, txt for plain reading) and an important failure condition when no transcript exists. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_recording or download_tracks, leaving usage implicit.

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