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

Annotations already declare a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), so the description's job is to add context, which it does: credit consumption proportional to duration, the 'waiting_for_file' pre-condition state, and that repeated calls are safe. The claim 'safe to call repeatedly' sits in mild tension with idempotentHint=false, but it describes retry safety rather than a strict no-duplicate-effect guarantee, and the waiting-state explanation supports it.

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 action and its prerequisite, then cost, then failure handling. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 mutating, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers the key agent needs: prerequisite, side effects (episode creation, credit burn), the notable status response, and retry safety. Minor gaps remain on auth requirements and what happens to an abandoned upload.

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 coverage is 67% and the description only indirectly references uploadId ('started with start_audio_upload'), adding no meaning for title, keywords, speakers, description, or durationSeconds. With the schema already documenting uploadId, keywords and speakers, the description neither compensates for the undocumented title/description/durationSeconds nor adds format guidance.

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 ('Finish an upload', 'creates the episode and starts AI processing') and anchors itself to the sibling 'start_audio_upload' it completes. An agent can distinguish it from process_episode or import_episode without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly ties usage to a prior start_audio_upload call and prescribes the recovery action when status is 'waiting_for_file' (ask the user, then call again). It does not spell out when NOT to use it (e.g., alternatives like import_episode or process_episode), so it falls just short of the top mark.

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