Get Hearing Transcript

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds context by specifying that it returns 'all speakers' and mentions default/max values for 'limit', which are useful beyond annotations. However, it does not detail aspects like rate limits or auth needs, so it adds some value but not comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then usage guidelines, and finally parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple retrieval with 2 parameters), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics adequately. However, it could briefly mention what 'segments' entail or link to the output schema for return values, leaving minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'source_id' as 'The hearing source ID (UUID from search_committee_hearings results)' and 'limit' as 'Max segments to return (default 50, max 200)', adding crucial semantics not in the schema. This effectively clarifies parameter meanings, though it could note that 'source_id' is required or provide more on segment format.

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's purpose: 'Get the full transcript of a specific hearing with all speakers.' It uses specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('transcript of a hearing'), but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'search_hearing_testimony' or 'get_speaker_activity', which might involve similar data. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-distinctive.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use search_committee_hearings first to find the source_id.' This clearly states a prerequisite and when to use this tool (after finding the source_id), distinguishing it from alternatives like 'search_committee_hearings' for discovery. It effectively guides the agent on the workflow.

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