transcribe_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds the auth prerequisite ('Requires a configured API key') and clearly frames the tool as a status-checking operation. Still, it does not explain whether repeated checks are safe, what response format to expect, or whether it creates no side effects beyond what the name 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?

The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed directly by relevant usage conditions and a required prerequisite. 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?

For a one-parameter status-checking tool, the description is adequate for selection and basic invocation. However, there is no original output schema and no return-format guidance, and the description does not clarify how the result is returned or how to interpret statuses. The sibling overlap with transcription_status also leaves some contextual ambiguity.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the only parameter, transcribing 'transcription_id', including where it comes from. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Check the status of a Scriptivox transcription job.' It is specific enough for normal use. However, the sibling list includes transcription_status, which may serve the same role, and the description does not distinguish between them.

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 gives explicit usage scenarios: long-running transcriptions, after a timeout, and verifying completion. It also notes the API key requirement. It does not mention alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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