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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the status-conditional return payloads, and specifically that a 'payment_required' status yields a preview plus a payment_url intended to be surfaced to the user. That is actionable flow context an agent could not derive from the annotation or schema.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the status concept and then the two branches. Minor waste and slight ambiguity in the trailing clause about summary/action_items/translations being returned 'when requested', since no such request parameter exists on this tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so for the two key statuses. The trailing reference to summary/action_items/translations is underspecified (those appear to belong to sibling tools like request_summary), leaving a small gap for a read tool whose whole job is returning payloads.

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 job_id, robot_key, and the format enum (including the 'timed'/'speaker_labels' dependency) are already documented in the schema. The description only vaguely gestures at 'the chosen format', adding no syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description states a specific resource (a job) and its status, and enumerates the two meaningful status outcomes ('completed', 'payment_required') with what each returns. It is distinguishable from list_jobs and delete_job, though the verb itself is implied by the name rather than stated.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the polling tool after start_transcription/transcribe_url, and the payment_required branch tells it what to do next. However, it never names an alternative or states when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. list_jobs for enumerating jobs).

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