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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the 'Read-only' text is redundant. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are ordered most-recent first and pagination uses limit/offset. No auth, rate-limit, or return-shape details beyond transcripts are given.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, then pagination and read-only. Every element serves the agent, with no repetition or filler.

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 simple two-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers purpose, ordering, and pagination. It omits explicit usage routing, but otherwise provides enough to invoke 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It identifies limit and offset as pagination controls and repeats the limit range (1-200), but does not explain offset semantics or the default values already present in the schema. This partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 (List), resource (captures), scope (user's recent), and categories (dictations, recordings, uploads) with transcripts and ordering. This distinguishes it from sibling list_voice_profiles and other tools without needing to reference them.

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 implied usage by specifying the tool lists captures, but does not state when to use it versus alternatives like get_generation or search_tools, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites. An agent can infer it is the general capture-list endpoint, but explicit guidance is absent.

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