Transcribe audio or video from a URL

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses cost, payment method, file size limit, and refusal policy for oversized files. It also describes output behavior (per-segment timings and language detection). Missing details on error handling for unreachable URLs but overall provides key behavioral context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adding non-redundant information (purpose, cost, size limit). Concise without missing critical details.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, size limit, and output shape (timings, language). It is sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke, though more detail on output format would increase completeness.

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 100% with a basic param description. The tool description adds value beyond the schema: constraints (public reachable, <800KB), cost, and output details. This helps an agent understand the parameter's context and limits.

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 clearly states the tool transcribes audio/video from a URL into text with per-segment timings and detected language. The verb 'transcribe' and resource 'audio or video from a URL' are specific and distinct from unrelated sibling tools.

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?

The description tells when to use: for public URLs needing transcription with timings and language detection. It provides important constraints (file <800KB, cost $0.05, USDC payment). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid the tool or suggest alternatives, though siblings are unrelated.

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