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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds value beyond them: the concrete return shape (integer 0-100) and the required recordings:read scope. It omits edge behavior such as what is returned or raised if the recording id doesn't exist or has never been processed, which is the remaining gap.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, return contract second, auth prerequisite last. No filler and nothing buried.

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 return contract and does so (integer 0-100), and the one required parameter is schema-documented. A small gap remains around terminal states and error conditions, but an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 account, workspace and recordingId are all documented at the schema level. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond that, 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 a specific verb and resource ('Get the processing progress of a recording') and immediately pins down the returned value range 0-100, so an agent knows exactly what this yields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from hub_get_call, which likely also exposes recording state, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Gives a concrete usage context — polling after a hub_reprocess_recording call — which names the sibling it pairs with and the temporal ordering. It stops short of saying when not to use it (e.g., when the recording is already processed, or to use hub_get_call for full detail) or how often to poll.

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