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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the OAuth account confirmation context, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Given the rich annotations, the bar is low and the description offers a modest addition.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a concrete use case. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool does and when to call it. No output schema exists, but specifying the return format is not necessary for selecting or invoking the 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?

There are zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly omits any parameter details since none exist. No compensation is needed.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('profile for the authenticated ScreenApp account'), and adds a concrete use case (confirming which account OAuth selected). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recording or get_team, which target different resources.

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 mentions when the tool is useful ('confirming which account OAuth selected'), giving agents a clear trigger for invocation. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool, the context is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the 'legacy' qualifier, which is useful context (implies there may be non-legacy recordings). It doesn't contradict annotations and adds a small but relevant detail beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence states purpose and scope; the second routes to alternatives. All information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only metadata retrieval with one well-documented parameter and safety covered by annotations, the description is complete. It specifies the resource type ('legacy'), gives alternatives for other data, and no output schema exists so return format explanation is not required. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the single parameter fileId, with a clear description ('ScreenApp recording/file UUID'). The description does not add parameter-specific detail, but none is needed since the schema fully documents it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('Get metadata') and the resource ('one legacy ScreenApp recording'). It also explicitly differentiates from siblings by directing transcript text to get_transcript and stored summary to get_summary, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does not return.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it tells the agent to use get_transcript for transcript text and get_summary for its stored summary. This makes it clear that this tool is for metadata only, and names the alternatives precisely.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by noting that it does not generate an answer and does not consume Ask AI credits, which is meaningful context beyond the annotations. It does not describe the return format, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying detail about read-only behavior and credits is concise. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read operation with an output schema present, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, clarifies it is read-only, and disambiguates from generation. No prerequisites or edge cases are left unexplained, and the sibling tools cover other recording-related operations.

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 description coverage is 50%: fileId has a clear description ('ScreenApp recording/file UUID'), but format lacks an explicit description. The tool description does not mention either parameter, so it adds no extra meaning. However, format is self-explanatory via its enum (json/markdown) and default, so the schema already provides sufficient guidance. The description does not compensate for the missing format description, but the gap is minor.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('summary stored for a UUID recording'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also clarifies that it is read-only and does not generate an answer, which distinguishes it from potential generation-oriented siblings like get_transcript or an Ask AI feature. The title reinforces the same meaning.

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 gives clear context: use this when you want the existing summary for a recording, and explicitly states that it does not generate an answer or consume Ask AI credits, so it should not be used for generation. However, it does not name specific alternative tools (e.g., get_transcript for transcripts), so the when-not is implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds only the 'one team' scope, reinforcing the read-only nature but offering no additional behavioral context such as response contents or error conditions.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the operation and resource with no filler. Every word contributes.

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 simple one-parameter read operation with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It does not explain what details are returned, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 only parameter, teamId, is already described as 'ScreenApp team ID' in the schema. The description does not add any new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the operation ('Read details') and the resource ('one ScreenApp team'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_teams that enumerate teams and get_recording that targets recordings. The scope is explicit: one team.

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 makes the context clear: use this when you need details for a single team, not when listing teams. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, so it stops short of the ideal.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral fact: long transcripts are paginated and the caller should follow nextOffset while hasMore is true. It also warns implicitly that a single response may be incomplete. This is useful context beyond the structured annotations, with no contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core operation, and the second gives the only extra behavior the caller needs. It is appropriately front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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, idempotent get with no output schema, the description covers the main operation and the pagination loop, while annotations cover safety. However, it does not clarify what nextOffset maps to in the input (offset), how format changes the result, or how transcript differs from get_summary, so an agent still has questions on first call. Useful but not fully 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 description coverage is only 25%: fileId has a description, while limit, offset, and format do not. The description mentions pagination and nextOffset/hasMore but never ties these to the offset parameter or explains format/limit semantics. As a result, the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Read an existing transcript,' naming a specific verb and resource, and the title reinforces the target. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_recording or get_summary, so the agent must infer which resource is meant from the noun alone. Overall clear, but sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no statement about when to choose this tool over list_recordings, get_recording, search_recordings, or get_summary. The only use-oriented information is the pagination instruction, which concerns iteration rather than tool selection. This leaves the agent without alternative-selection guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that calling this tool does not consume credits, which is valuable beyond the annotations and not contradicted by them.

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?

Two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the second sentence adding only the non-obvious credit assurance. Every word earns its place and nothing extraneous is included.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is complete: it states the resource, the type of data, and a behavior that matters to callers. No output schema is present, so the description's high-level promise of usage and billing counters is sufficient guidance.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema carries no parameter meaning to compensate for; the 0-param baseline of 4 applies. The description's mention of 'usage and billing counters' adequately frames what the returned data represents.

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 names a specific verb, 'Read', and a distinct resource, 'ScreenApp usage and billing counters,' which clearly separates it from the recording-, transcript-, profile-, and team-oriented siblings. The title reinforces the resource without ambiguity.

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 statement 'Read ScreenApp usage and billing counters' provides clear context for when to call the tool, and 'This does not consume credits' signals it is a low-cost informational call. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but none are needed for a zero-parameter read-only counter.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral nuance of team selection (last active vs. specified), which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or result format, which would enhance transparency. The added team-scoping detail justifies a 3.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the action and scope. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place.

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 straightforward list operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is listed and the team scoping option. It does not explicitly mention pagination or ordering, but the limit/offset parameters are already documented in the schema, and the tool's simplicity means the description is adequate 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (limit, offset, teamId) are already documented with descriptions. The description's mention of 'specified team' reinforces teamId but adds no new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Per baseline rules, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 action (list recordings) and the resource (ScreenApp recordings), with an explicit scope: 'last active ScreenApp team or a specified team.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recording (single item) and search_recordings (search functionality), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by mentioning team scoping (last active vs. specified), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like search_recordings or get_recording. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool's name and sibling list.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scoping detail 'available to the authenticated ScreenApp account,' which is useful but stops short of describing output format, pagination, or any side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource with no extraneous words. Every part of the description earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation, the description supplies the essential purpose and scope. The absence of an output schema is a minor gap, but the description is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information to supplement. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate since the description cannot add value beyond the empty 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'teams' and scopes it to the authenticated account. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_team, which implies a singular fetch, and from list_recordings, which targets a different resource.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_team or search_recordings. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering, or when a different sibling would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description is not responsible for safety. It adds a meaningful behavioral boundary—no AI answer generation—which implies lower cost/latency, but it does not disclose result shape or pagination. Adequate but not rich.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the distinction from AI answers is included economically. Structure is excellent.

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 search tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description captures intent and boundary but leaves return format, pagination, and optional filter behavior unexplained. The strong annotations cover safety, so this is acceptable but not comprehensive for a new agent.

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 description clarifies that query targets transcript text, which is useful because the query property has no schema description. But it ignores ownerIds/parentIds and filter semantics, and schema description coverage is only 50%. It adds only minimal value beyond the obvious.

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 precise action and object—'Search existing transcript text'—and immediately flags what it is not: an AI-generated answer. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_summary without requiring the 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?

Clearly indicates the appropriate context: raw transcript lookup rather than AI-generated answers. However, it never names the alternative tool explicitly and gives no detailed when-to-use versus get_transcript or get_summary, so the routing is clear but implicit.

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