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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does disclose key behavior: ASYNC submission, immediate job-id return, and the batch endpoint. It does not cover auth requirements for the API call, rate limits, or what happens when the URL fetch fails, so it stops short of full transparency.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the async workflow. The trailing "Batch API: POST /jobs" is a minor implementation detail but is short and arguably useful for an agent choosing an integration path.

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 15-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the critical missing piece: the async result-retrieval contract via get_job/get_transcript. The parameter surface is fully covered by the schema, and the return contract is summarized, leaving only auth/error handling 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%, so all 15 parameters (including diarization, summarize, translation_target_languages) are already documented. The description's mention of diarization/translation/summarization merely echoes the schema and adds no syntax or defaulting detail beyond it, so 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 (submit/transcribe) and resource (publicly reachable audio/video URL) plus the optional capabilities. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like speechmatics_get_transcript or speechmatics_list_jobs, which are named in the routing guidance.

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 describes the orchestration: returns a job id immediately, poll speechmatics_get_job until status is "done", then call speechmatics_get_transcript. This names the downstream alternatives and the condition that selects each, leaving nothing to inference.

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