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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is non-blocking and requires polling, and that the response format depends on the 'diarize' flag passed during creationfake. However, it does not disclose the structure of the response (e.g., fields like status, text, timestamps) beyond what is implied, and there is no mention of error behavior or rate limits. This is a moderate disclosure given the lack of annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences long and extremely concise. The core function is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the polling instructions are in the second. Every clause carries information with no fluff.

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?

The tool is a simple polling endpoint with 2 parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the essential usage: how to poll, what to expect during processing, and that the result may include speaker labels. However, it lacks details on error handling or the exact response fields, but given the simplicity, it is adequately 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?

The schema already has 100% coverage, documenting job_id as 'Идентификатор из transcribe_url' and format with its default. The description adds context about how the 'diarize' flag affects the output, but does not elaborate on the format parameter's specific syntax beyond what the schema provides. This is a baseline 3 given the schema's thoroughness.

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 purpose: to retrieve the state of a transcription task by job_idhare, and when ready, the transcript text with timestamps and speaker labels. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like transcribe_url or transcribe_file, which are used to create tasks, so an agent might wonder about the relationship to those. The verb 'Возвращает' (returns) and resource 'состояние задачи' (task state) are specific.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: it is for polling the status of an async transcription task, and it explicitly advises to call repeatedly with a pause when status is 'processing'. It does not, however, name alternative tools for when to use instead, but given the sibling list (which includes creation tools), the intended use is fairly unambiguous.

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