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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by listing the returned attributes (file_id, name, durée, statut, date, présence d'une synthèse), which annotations cannot convey, though it says nothing about ordering or pagination behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler. The long parenthetical of returned fields is dense but informative rather than redundant.

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 simple two-parameter read-only list tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the definition is largely self-sufficient, especially since it compensates for the missing output schema by naming the returned fields. Only the relationship to search_transcriptions is left unstated.

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% and both parameters (limit with range/default, status enum) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about filtering or page-size implications, 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?

Names a specific verb ("Liste") and resource ("transcriptions audio et vidéo") scoped to the authenticated account, and even enumerates the fields returned. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_transcriptions, so an agent must infer the difference (list-all vs. query), keeping it below 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?

Usage is only implied: the account-wide scope suggests 'use this to browse everything,' but the description states no when-to-use condition, no exclusions, and does not point to search_transcriptions or get_transcription_text for narrower retrieval.

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