Transcribe a recording

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

The annotations only mark readOnly=false, openWorld=true, and destructive=false, so they do not disclose cost. The description adds that the operation consumes the user's credits, requires prior cost disclosure and agreement, and is billed only for recognized speech (not silence/music). This is exactly the kind of behavioral context agents need.

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 sentences, each with a distinct job: purpose, alternative, billing nuance, and mandatory cost consent. The format list is long but necessary; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Even without an output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke correctly: supported file types, the save behavior, the cost/consent workflow, and a pointer to `estimate_cost`. Parameter behaviors like `wait_seconds` and temporary-link fallback are already fully described in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat them.

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. The description adds value by listing the supported audio/video extensions for `source`, which the schema does not enumerate, and by characterizing the output as timed text, which clarifies `output_formats`. It doesn't add much for the other parameters, but enough to exceed baseline.

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 a specific action ('Write down what is said') on a clear resource ('audio or video file') and states the output ('timed text...save it'). It also names the sibling it is not ('For a translation...use translate_file'), so an agent can distinguish transcription from translation without opening schemas.

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 explicitly routes translation requests to translate_file and directs the agent to estimate_cost before running, with the condition that user agreement must be obtained first. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and a prerequisite, 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.