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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation behavior: short outputs are returned inline while long ones yield a download link valid for only 10 minutes, which affects how the agent must handle and relay the result.

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 lean sentences with no waste; the core purpose and the critical return-behavior caveat are both front-loaded and unambiguous.

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 appropriately explains return behavior (inline vs time-limited download link), which is the main thing an agent needs. Minor remaining gap is the lack of sibling differentiation, but overall the definition is complete enough to invoke 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 the schema already documents seq, language, translationFirst, and mixWithOriginLanguage thoroughly. The description's mention of 'optionally translated or bilingual' reinforces intent but adds little syntax or default detail 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 (export), resource (transcript of a transcribed episode), and format (SRT subtitles), plus the scope of optional translation/bilingual output. This cleanly separates it from siblings like export_episode_markdown or get_episode_transcript without needing their schemas.

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?

It implies usage through the optional translation and bilingual framing, and notes the inline-vs-link behavior, but never states when to choose this over export_episode_markdown, get_episode_transcript, or translate_episode. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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