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

The description adds value beyond the provided annotations (readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true) by listing the specific output fields (text, word count, confidence, language, speaker labels). This gives the agent a clear expectation of what will be returned, which annotations alone do not provide.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and outputs, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 that the tool has only one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool returns, the input requirement, and source of the input. Nothing important is missing.

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 schema covers the parameter with a basic description, but the tool description adds critical context: 'Use transcript_id from submit (AssemblyAI)'. This tells the agent exactly where to obtain the ID, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 action 'Retrieve' and the resource 'completed transcription text', and lists specific data fields (word count, confidence score, etc.). It also references the sibling tool 'submit' to clarify the input source, effectively distinguishing it from other transcription tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use the 'transcript_id from submit (AssemblyAI)', providing a clear prerequisite. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the context of retrieving a completed transcription naturally implies it should be used after submission and when status indicates completion.

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