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

With no annotations provided, the description is the primary source of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful traits: the transcript includes speaker diarization and speaker name mapping, and access is plan-restricted. However, it does not disclose the output format, response structure, or potential size limits, which could be relevant for a full transcript.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, includes key features, and states the plan restriction. There is no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose and a critical access restriction. However, it leaves out the return format (e.g., plain text, JSON) and any handling of large transcripts, which would improve completeness. Overall, it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for its single parameter, episode_id, which is described as 'Episode ID'. The description does not add any additional parameter-level details, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to get the full transcript for a specific episode. It specifies the resource (episode transcript) and the action (get), and differentiates from siblings like get_episode_summary and get_episode_quotes by emphasizing 'full transcript' and including speaker diarization/mapping.

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?

The description provides a clear access restriction ('Pro and Enterprise plans only'), which helps the agent determine when the tool can be used. It implies usage for obtaining full transcripts versus summaries or quotes, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when/when-not scenarios beyond the plan restriction.

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