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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the conditional behavior: text is only returned when status=done. However, it does not say what the response looks like when not done, nor mention auth needs or rate limits.

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?

A single efficient sentence front-loads the core action (status lookup by ID) followed by the conditional return. No wasted text, though slightly more structure could separate the status check from the format options.

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 read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the main path but omits what is returned when status is not done and how formats affect output. Adequate but leaves a meaningful gap for callers handling pending transcriptions.

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 the schema already documents id, format, speakers, and timestamps. The description mentions the formats generically but adds no semantics beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('Consulta o status de uma transcrição pelo ID') and adds the conditional outcome when status=done. This clearly distinguishes it from delete_transcription or list_transcriptions, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied through the required ID and the status condition, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus list_transcriptions (to find an ID) or what to do if the transcription is not yet done. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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