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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that the call validates file presence and queues work rather than returning a finished transcript, but it says nothing about failure behavior if the file is missing, cost implications, or how to poll for results.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the prerequisite call ordering front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 only two fully documented parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies the essential missing piece (the prior upload step plus queueing semantics). It could go further by noting that completion must be polled via get_job and whether payment is required.

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%: job_id's origin (transcribe_url or create_upload) and robot_key's purpose are both documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, 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 the action concretely: it verifies the uploaded file arrived and queues it for processing, which pairs with the name start_transcription. It is implicitly distinguished from create_upload/transcribe_url by the 'after the PUT' sequencing, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Call after the PUT to upload_url has finished" gives an explicit timing prerequisite, which is the key piece of when-to-use guidance for this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to call it (e.g., before upload completes, or without payment).

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