get_transcript

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals the asynchronous delivery behavior when destination_url is provided, versus synchronous return otherwise, and describes the transcript contents. This is valuable behavioral context beyond basic operation, though it does not cover potential errors or prerequisites.

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, front-loads the primary purpose, and efficiently explains the conditional behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 low complexity and presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description sufficiently explains the return content and the async option. It could mention error conditions or required permissions, but for a focused transcript retrieval tool, the information is reasonably 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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that providing destination_url changes delivery mode to asynchronous, which is not evident from the schema alone. This elevates the score.

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 retrieves a transcript for a specific meeting recording, using the verb 'Get' and identifying the resource (transcript). It distinguishes from siblings like get_summary by specifying transcript content including speaker information, text, and timestamps.

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 context for when to use the tool: when a transcript is needed, and clarifies two usage modes based on destination_url (async vs sync). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context signals and sibling names make the purpose distinct enough.

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