Get transcript

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the return format (plain text) and the important readiness caveat (empty/null until the source finishes processing). It does not cover permissions, behavior for non-transcript sources, or size/pagination limits.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the primary purpose leads and the readiness caveat follows as a useful caveat.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description helpfully explains the return value and its null-until-processed state. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, though a note on failure modes or empty transcript sources would round it out.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description only restates that source ids come from get_notebook. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Get the raw transcript text of a single source on a meeting note') and scopes it to one source, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_notebook and chat_with_sources.

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?

Implies when the tool is useful by pointing to get_notebook as the source of ids and warning the transcript is empty until processing finishes, but never states when to prefer this over chat_with_sources or get_notebook itself.

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