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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds valuable context about the output (speaker diarization and speaker name mapping) and access restrictions (plans). It doesn't mention error handling or data limits, but for a read-only transcript tool, it gives sufficient transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. No fluff 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned (full transcript with diarization) and access restrictions. It might benefit from specifying return format, but it's not necessary for basic comprehension.

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: 'episode_id' is described as 'Episode ID'. The description adds no further parameter semantics, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the full transcript for a specific episode' with specific details about speaker diarization and name mapping. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle summaries, details, or quotes.

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 context by mentioning the plan restriction ('Pro and Enterprise plans only'), which is a usage constraint. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_episode_summary.

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