transcribe_translate

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses async behavior (returns requestId, poll with check_job_status), flat pricing covering STT and translation, payment requirement, and source auto-detection. It could mention file size limits or supported audio formats, but overall transparency is high.

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-loads key information (compound endpoint, use case). Some redundancy (e.g., 'Pay with Bitcoin Lightning — no API key or signup needed' could be shorter), but overall efficient and well-organized.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return type (requestId) and how to retrieve result (poll). Covers payment, async nature, source/target languages, and cost comparison. Missing details on output format (e.g., transcript structure) but given complexity, it's reasonably 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value: explains paymentId requires a paid payment, audioBase64 is base64-encoded, targetLanguage supports English name or ISO-639 (119 languages), sourceLanguage is optional with auto-detection and lists the 13 supported languages. This is meaningful enrichment.

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 it is a compound endpoint that transcribes audio in 13 source languages and translates to 119 target languages. It distinguishes itself from siblings like transcribe_audio and translate_text by highlighting the combined offering and cost savings.

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?

Provides concrete examples (WhatsApp voice messages, meeting recordings), notes auto-detection of source language, async polling via check_job_status, cost comparison to alternatives, and prerequisites (create_payment). This gives explicit guidance on when and how to use.

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