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

readOnlyHint already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuine beyond-annotation context: the status=='done' precondition and the underlying Batch API endpoint. It doesn't mention auth requirements, size limits, or whether the transcript is returned inline vs as a link, which keeps 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?

Front-loads the core action, then packs format choices and the precondition into two tight sentences. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 does the work of explaining what each format returns, and states the status precondition. It omits how the payload is delivered (inline text, file, or URL) and any error behavior when the job isn't done, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it expands srt as 'subtitles' (the schema only lists it in the enum) and details json-v2 contents (words, timings, speakers, translations, summary). Only job_id gets no added semantics, which it doesn't need.

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 (Get) and resource (a completed job's transcript), and the phrase 'completed job's transcript' distinguishes it from siblings like get_job (metadata) and get_job_log (logs). An agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Explicitly states the precondition 'Only works once the job status is "done"', which is real usage guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use get_job to poll status first), so it is clear context without full when-to-use routing.

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