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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds real value beyond them: processing is asynchronous and billed to the Enterprise organization, and completion is checked via enterprise_get_status. It still doesn't explain the destructive/reprocessing implications or what forceRetry does to prior 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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the sourcing/next-step details following. Every sentence carries information the 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?

For a 13-param, destructive, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the two input modes, async nature, billing, and where to poll for results. It stops short of documenting the many optional flags and reprocessing behavior, but the critical path is complete.

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 only 38% across 13 params, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the key mutual-exclusivity of audioUrl vs uploadId and where uploadId comes from, but the other ~11 parameters (keywords, description, generate* flags, forceRetry, title) get no added meaning beyond the schema.

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: 'Submit an audio file to the Enterprise Processing API.' It names the adjacent pipeline tools (start_audio_upload, enterprise_get_status), giving workflow context. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling process_episode, which keeps it from a 5.

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 workflow guidance: supply either audioUrl or uploadId, and poll enterprise_get_status afterward. However, it never states when to choose this Enterprise tool over alternatives like process_episode or import_episode; usage is implied rather than explicit.

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