transcript_segments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: overlapping (not just contained) segments are returned, and include_words roughly triples the response size so it defaults off. It omits prerequisites (e.g., whether the job must be finished), auth needs, and error behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each adds information. The straddling-boundary clause is slightly redundant with the preceding overlap sentence but usefully makes the rule concrete.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described. The description covers the window semantics and the one costly parameter; only job prerequisites and time-unit details are missing, which is a modest gap for this complexity level.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains include_words' cost and default, and the overlap rule clarifies start_s/end_s window semantics, but job_id and the units/format of the time bounds are left entirely to the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Pull a time window of the transcript.' The boundary/overlap semantics further pin down exactly what is returned, which implicitly distinguishes it from transcript_get and transcript_search, though no sibling is named.

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?

Usage is implied by the boundary discussion (use this when you want a slice rather than the whole transcript), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative guidance relative to transcript_get, transcript_search, or transcript_export.

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