verify_generated_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so admirably. It discloses the entire pipeline: 'Downloads the video, extracts its audio, transcribes with ElevenLabs Scribe, and judges against text.' It even provides threshold details (100% pass / 85-99% warning / <85% raises) and asserts its canonical status, leaving no doubt about the tool's behavior.

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 four sentences, each contributing unique value: definition, usage timing, process details, and exclusion. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no redundant or filler 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 the tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary contextual elements: when to use, what it does, how parameters relate, and behavioral outcomes. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool without additional ambiguity.

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 provides only types and defaults (0% coverage), but the description explains each parameter's meaning: 'text' is the original spoken Hebrew, 'task_id' is from the async job, and 'video_url' is an alternative to task_id. This adds essential semantic context beyond the bare schema.

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 function: 'Run the generated-video Scribe QA gate on a finished Seedance task.' It specifies the exact resource (finished Seedance task) and distinguishes it from generation siblings by focusing on verification. The mention of 'Hebrew lipsync job' further narrows the scope.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this after an async (wait=false) Hebrew lipsync job completes.' It also clarifies exclusions: 'Do not substitute local whisper or other ASR — this is the canonical gate.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool and when not to use alternatives.

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