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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses the critical asynchronous behavior (immediate job id, polling required, completion condition) and the requirement that the URL be publicly reachable. It does not mention error handling or auth, but the disclosed async pattern is significant and adds value.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the core function, the second gives the essential async workflow, and the third identifies the batch API endpoint. No fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (15 params, async behavior, no output schema), the description covers the most critical missing context: the async flow and where to find the transcript. It doesn't explain error handling or deletion, but the schema covers parameters and the description provides a complete workflow for the primary use case.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 15 parameters. The description adds a high-level overview (diarization, translation, summarization) but does not provide any additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's function: submit a publicly reachable audio/video URL for speech-to-text transcription. It mentions optional features (diarization, translation, summarization) and the async nature. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only creation/submission tool; siblings are all retrieval/deletion.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: 'ASYNC: returns a job id immediately — poll speechmatics_get_job until status is "done", then call speechmatics_get_transcript.' This tells the agent how to use the tool and which siblings to call next. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the async workflow and the fact that it's the only submission tool among siblings makes usage clear.

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