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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine extra context by disclosing the status lifecycle values and the polling workflow. It omits rate-limit/polling-interval guidance that Rev.ai documents, keeping it from a 5.

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 content is front-loaded and every clause carries information: scope, return fields, polling action, endpoint. The telegraphic fragment style ('One transcription job by id:') is efficient but slightly clipped relative to a well-formed sentence.

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 compensates by naming the key response fields and the status values an agent must branch on, plus the polling rule. Coverage is strong for a single-parameter read tool; only polling cadence and terminal-state handling are absent.

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?

There is one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that the id comes from revai_submit_job or revai_list_jobs. The description adds nothing further about the id's format or acceptance, so the baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('One transcription job by id') and enumerates the returned fields (status, timestamps, duration, language, failure reason), which clearly separates it from revai_list_jobs. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of 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?

'Poll this until status is transcribed' gives concrete operational guidance that most definitions lack, and it implicitly chains to fetching the transcript afterwards. It does not state when to prefer revai_get_transcript or revai_get_summary instead, so no exclusions are offered.

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