transcription_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is a deprecated alias with the exact behavior of transcribe_url and a finite lifecycle, which is the core behavioral context needed. It does not spell out the actual behavior itself, but that is intentionally delegated to transcribe_url.

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 very short and immediately front-loads the only action an agent should take: don't use this, use transcribe_url. Every sentence earns its place—deprecation, backward compatibility, removal, and identical behavior.

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 deprecated alias, the description is complete: it warns the agent, names the replacement, gives compatibility context, and clarifies behavior is inherent to the sibling. The rich input schema covers all parameters, and there is no output schema to describe.

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% for all 8 parameters, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable here because it refers the agent to transcribe_url for behavior details.

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 explicitly labels the tool as a deprecated alias and states its behavior is identical to transcribe_url. This clearly identifies the tool's role and points to the appropriate sibling, making it separate from the other URL or status 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 explicitly instructs 'use transcribe_url instead', warns of removal in 2.0.0, and notes the tool only exists for backward compatibility. An agent gets direct and unambiguous selection guidance.

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