list_transcriptions

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that responses omit the full transcript body and that authentication/config is required. For a list operation, this conveys the non-destructive read behavior and the key output limitation, though it does not describe potential errors, rate limits, or exact return shape beyond what the schema already implies.

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 with no filler. The core capability is front-loaded, the key scoping constraint (omitted body) comes second, and the auth prerequisite is last. Every sentence 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does most of the heavy lifting: it explains pagination, filtering, auth requirement, and how to get full transcript data. It could be more explicit about the exact response shape, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to correctly call the tool, navigate pagination, and route follow-up requests to transcribe_status.

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 100%, so the input schema already thoroughly documents parameters like to, from, limit, order, cursor, and status. The description adds a high-level grouping ('optional status/date filters and cursor pagination') but no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List recent transcriptions for the configured API key'. It also distinguishes itself from a sibling by noting the full transcript body is omitted and one should 'fetch transcribe_status per id to read it', so an agent can tell this listing operation apart from the status/individual-fetch tools without opening schemas.

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 not only says what the tool does, but also gives an explicit conditional for an alternative: when you need the full transcript body, use transcribe_status per id. The prerequisite 'Requires a configured API key' is also stated, which helps an agent decide whether this tool is usable in its current environment.

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