Get the summary, key points and chapters

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), yet the description adds two traits not in annotations: it is 'Free' (cost behavior, relevant given a sibling named 'estimate') and it may be unavailable unless the job ran with the summary feature. It does not describe error behavior when the feature was not enabled or any rate 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what you get, why to use it, and the availability constraint. The most decision-relevant content (the return content and the 'cheapest' framing) is front-loaded.

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, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so explicitly by enumerating the abstract, key points, quotes, and chapters. Combined with the availability precondition and annotation-covered read-only nature, an agent has enough to decide and invoke correctly.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema baseline applies. The description adds nothing about job_id semantics (where it comes from, format, or how it relates to sibling tools), so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 names the specific artifacts returned (abstract, key points, timestamped pull quotes, timestamped chapters) for a finished transcript, which is far more concrete than a tautology. It positions itself implicitly against get_transcript by framing itself as the cheap way to learn what a long recording is about, but it never names a sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

It gives a clear use case ('the cheapest way to find out what a long recording is about') and a hard precondition ('only present if the job was run with the summary feature'), which tells the agent when this tool will actually return data. It does not name alternative tools (e.g., get_transcript, search_transcript) for when the summary is absent or when you need the full text.

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