transcribe_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers key behavioral traits: auto-detection failure modes, the requirement for a configured API key, and the fact that diarize true forces alignment on regardless of `align`. This adds context beyond the schema, though it could have disclosed more about polling behavior or webhook details—mostly covered by schema, but not explicit here.

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 a single focused paragraph. It front-loads the core action and capabilities, then introduces the RECOMMENDED language hint and the API key note. Every sentence earns its place. A light structure (bullets) would improve skimmability, but the length is appropriate and not bloated.

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?

There is no output schema, and no annotation safety metadata, so the description must do more work. It covers the keys: the URL format, language auto-detection risk, the API key requirement, and the interaction of align/diarize. Some gaps remain: what the transcription output looks like, when to use transcribe_upload, and webhook signature behavior are not detailed, but for a tool whose schema covers most parameter logic, this is quite complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by recommending the `language` parameter and explaining why explicit language guesses improve reliability, which the schema does not. It highlights the interaction between `diarize` and `align`. This extra context nudges the score up.

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: 'Transcribe audio or video from a public URL using Scriptivox AI.' It lists concrete capabilities (119 languages, speaker diarization, word-level timestamps) and distinguishes the tool from sibling transcribe_upload, which handles uploads rather than public URLs. An agent can clearly identify what this tool does and when to reach for it.

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, actionable usage guidance: always pass `language` when known, because auto-detection fails on short clips or code-switched audio. It also states a prerequisite (requires a configured API key). Although it does not name sibling alternatives, the when-to-use and when-to-avoid guidance for this specific tool is sufficient for correct invocation.

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