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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the async pattern (returns job_id immediately), the follow-up mechanism (get_transcript), and a billing side-effect (minutes deducted by actual duration). It omits failure modes and error handling, but the non-obvious async and cost behaviors are valuable disclosures.

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 core operation, the async return behavior, and the billing implication. The purpose is front-loaded and there is zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by explaining that the return value is a job_id and directing the agent to get_transcript for the result. It covers the critical operational surface (input source, async pattern, cost) for a mutation tool; minor gaps remain around supported file formats and error conditions.

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 four parameters (s3_key, file_name, diarize, language) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces s3_key's origin in create_upload but adds no per-parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, landing at the baseline 3.

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 ('Переводит в текст') and resource ('файл, загруженный по ссылке из create_upload'), which pinpoints both the operation and its input source. The mention of the create_upload link distinguishes it from the sibling transcribe_url, which presumably handles URLs instead of uploaded files.

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 implicitly lays out a pipeline: create_upload supplies the file, transcribe_file launches the job, and get_transcript retrieves the result. It gives clear workflow context but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over transcribe_url or exclude alternatives.

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