getTranscript

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is already covered, and the description goes further by disclosing the exact shape of returned data (speech and silence segments with start/end seconds and text). With no output schema, this return-format disclosure is genuinely valuable. It does not mention scope limits, pagination, or auth.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the default-parameter rule. No filler.

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 exists, and the description steps in to describe the returned segment format, so an agent knows what comes back. Combined with annotation-covered safety and the assetId default rule, it is close to complete, missing only guidance relative to sibling transcript tools.

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 50%: projectId is documented in the schema but assetId is not. The description compensates by explaining assetId's omission semantics ('Omit assetId to read the primary asset's transcript'), adding real meaning beyond the bare schema type.

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 specific verb+resource ('Read the transcript segments ... for an asset') and even enumerates the returned fields (speech/silence, start/end seconds, text). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like getTranscriptWords or getCaptions, so it falls short of the top tier.

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?

Gives one concrete usage rule ('Omit assetId to read the primary asset's transcript'), which clarifies a default behavior. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this over getTranscriptWords or getCaptions, leaving the choice to inference.

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