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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive. The description adds two behaviors beyond them: the conditional existence of the resource and character-based paging. It does not describe the summary's shape, but for a read tool with annotations this is solid added context.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core fact and the precondition before the paging hint. The trailing endpoint path is mildly redundant but cheap and locates the call precisely.

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 one-required-param read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, precondition, and paging convention. It leaves the summary's content format unspecified, but an agent has enough to invoke it 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% and both offset and max_chars are already documented there. The description's 'paged by character' note echoes the schema rather than extending it, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('The summary of a transcribed job') and immediately scopes it with the availability precondition. It also names the sibling revai_get_transcript as the paging analogue, so an agent can distinguish it from the transcript tool without opening either schema.

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 a clear precondition — the summary exists only if the job was submitted with summarization_type — which tells the agent when this call will yield data. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over revai_get_transcript, but the shared paging model and the name make the relationship obvious.

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