dubbing_get_segments

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive call, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: results arrive 'in pages,' and supplying target_language changes the returned fields to include target_chars, max_chars and any previously saved translation — a conditional-output trait the annotations cannot express.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return shape, with the conditional target_language behavior following. The second sentence is dense but every clause carries information; nothing reads as filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be exhaustively described, and the tool itself is a simple paginated read. The description covers the one behaviorally interesting parameter (target_language) well; the only remaining shortfall is pagination semantics for limit/offset, which is minor for a defaulted read call.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It does well for target_language, explaining exactly what appears when it is set, but limit and offset are covered only by the vague phrase 'in pages' — no defaults, page size, or ordering semantics — leaving half the parameters under-specified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a project's transcript in pages,' then enumerates the per-line fields returned (id, speaker, start, slot_seconds, text). It also explains the conditional shape when target_language is supplied. It stops short of naming a sibling tool it should be preferred over, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 it to review speakers and to translate' gives a genuine usage cue, but there is no when-not guidance, no mention of pagination strategy when a transcript is large, and no reference to adjacent tools such as dubbing_set_translation or dubbing_assign_speakers that an agent might otherwise reach for.

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