transcript_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it enumerates the status lifecycle, explains that ``resumable`` is the authoritative retry signal, notes that ``download_urls``/``view_url`` only appear after output exists, and discloses that the links are loopback URLs served by this process. It even prescribes output presentation (markdown link in a sentence, not a code block), which is behavior an agent could not infer elsewhere.

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?

Front-loaded with the core answer and organized into short, scannable paragraphs. The closing presentation advice is useful but runs long and repeats the same idea twice ("one link beats five" plus "Prefer offering view_url alone"), which is minor padding.

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 read-only status endpoint with an output schema present, the description supplies everything an agent needs beyond the schema: the status vocabulary, the retry signal, and the conditional presence and handling of result links. The only omission, job_id provenance, is minor for a polling tool.

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 single required parameter ``job_id`` has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description — no format, no indication of where to obtain it (presumably from transcript_create). With one undocumented required parameter, the description leaves a real gap rather than compensating.

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?

"Where a job stands: status, stage, progress, elapsed and ETA" gives a specific resource (an async job) and the exact facets returned, which is plainly distinct from siblings like transcript_get (content) or transcript_list (enumeration). An agent can tell this is the polling/status tool without opening any schema.

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?

Gives actionable use-time guidance: use ``resumable`` rather than parsing error text, and surface download/view links once the job has produced output. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when *not* to call it (e.g. how often to poll, or to use transcript_get instead once done), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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