Get transcript job status

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: a successful API call can still represent a pending or failed job, content indicates success, and completed-without-content means the stored result is unavailable or expired. This is meaningful operational context the annotations do not provide.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose and resource cost, success/failure semantics, the pending-job caveat, and concrete polling guidance. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 with readOnly and idempotent annotations plus an output schema, the description covers the essential operational edge cases and polling strategy. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% and the jobId parameter is fully documented as the identifier returned by get_youtube_transcript, with a pattern. The description adds the notion of checking the 'same accepted job' but does not need to add more because the schema already defines the parameter precisely.

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 checks the status of an already-accepted transcription job and explicitly contrasts it with resubmitting the video. This makes it easy to distinguish from get_youtube_transcript and list_available_languages.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: poll an existing job in place of resubmitting the video. It also defines stop conditions ('failed, cancelled or completed without content') and instructs to poll with a delay and deadline, leaving no ambiguity about the intended workflow.

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