check_progress

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

Discloses that transcript text is processed by Claude's API, explains privacy_mode behavior (metadata only), and describes return fields. No annotations present, so description carries full burden; it covers key behavioral aspects well.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage pattern, then privacy warning. No wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, description clearly states return fields. Covers polling pattern, privacy concerns, and parameter usage. Complete for a simple 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?

Schema has 100% description coverage, but description adds value by linking job_id to transcribe_audio, explaining privacy_mode overrides, and detailing its effect (metadata only).

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 tool checks the status of a background transcription job, lists specific return fields (progress, elapsed time, last processed timestamp, transcript), and implicitly distinguishes from siblings that check other things like batch progress or system config.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call repeatedly until complete or failed, and explains privacy_mode usage. Does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like check_batch_progress, but the context is clear.

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