List recent transcripts

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint) and open-world scope, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real context: the ordering ('newest first'), the cost model ('Free'), and the fact that job ids are included. It does not mention pagination behavior, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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 with zero waste; the resource, ordering, and returned id are front-loaded before the usage hint. Every clause earns its place.

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 three optional parameters, the description carries real burden; it discloses the ordering and the job id field but not the remaining record shape, pagination behavior, or how limit interacts with the newest-first ordering. Adequate but incomplete for a listing tool.

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 coverage is only 67% — limit and search have descriptions but the status enum is bare — so the description is expected to compensate, and it says nothing about filtering. It never signals that the result set can be narrowed by title text or transcription status, leaving the agent unaware of the tool's actual filtering power.

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?

Names the resource (transcripts), the scope ('the account's'), the ordering ('newest first'), and a key returned field ('their job ids'). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_transcript, so the agent must infer the difference between listing and searching.

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?

'Use this to find the id of something transcribed earlier' gives an implied use case, which is more than nothing. However, it names no alternatives and no exclusions, so the likely confusion with search_transcript or get_transcript is left unresolved.

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