List the speakers in a transcript

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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — 'Free' (cost) and the shape of the returned data (speaker ids, speaking durations) — which is valuable since there is no output schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what you get, then the cost qualifier, then a practical heuristic about the data. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations about return content, the description usefully describes what comes back (participants, speaking time, speaker ids). It omits anything about ordering, pagination, or transcript-size limits, but for a simple single-param read tool this is largely 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?

Only one parameter (job_id) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax or format detail about job_id, matching the baseline 3 when 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 clearly what the tool returns: who is in the transcript, how long each speaker talks, and their speaker ids. This is specific enough to distinguish it from get_transcript or list_transcripts, but it does not explicitly name a sibling or frame itself as a verb+resource.

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 usage via 'their speaker ids for renaming' (routing toward rename_speaker) and the interviewer/interviewee tip, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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