get_dubbed_transcript_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the fragment 'Deprecated upstream', which vaguely signals lifecycle status but does not say whether the endpoint still returns data or what the deprecation means for the caller.

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 text is short, but it is not concise so much as incomplete and poorly formed — a sentence fragment trailing after the resource name. There is no front-loaded statement of what the tool returns or how it should be invoked.

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 3-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description should at least explain what is returned (a transcript file in the requested format) and the implications of deprecation. Neither is provided, so an agent cannot confidently decide to call it.

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%: dubbing_id, language_code, and the format_type enum are all documented in the schema itself, including the 'source' convention and format meanings. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description essentially restates the tool name ('Get Dubbed Transcript') rather than stating a distinct purpose, and the trailing fragment 'Deprecated upstream' is ungrammatical and ambiguous. It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as get_dubbing_transcripts, dubbing_transcript_get, or get_dubbed_file.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. The only guidance-adjacent text, 'Deprecated upstream', does not tell the agent whether to avoid the tool or what to call instead, leaving it unusable for routing decisions.

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