getTranscriptWords

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the conditional presence of source/originalText fields, the id-namespace distinction between this tool and getTranscript, and the practical constraint that whole transcripts are large so startSec/endSec should be used to narrow the read.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries information (id namespace, range scoping, assetId default). It is a single dense paragraph with heavy parentheticals, which is slightly taxing but not padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so completely (word ids, text, timing, conditional correction fields). Combined with the sibling routing and the range-narrowing advice, an agent has everything needed to call 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 coverage is only 25% (projectId alone is documented), so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains startSec/endSec as a passage window ('read just the passage you mean to fix') and assetId as omittable for the primary asset. It does not describe endSec/startSec units or ordering beyond the schema's numeric constraints, leaving a small gap.

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 and resource ('Read the transcript one WORD at a time for an asset') and enumerates the exact fields returned (id, text, start/end seconds, source, originalText). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling getTranscript, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'This is the ONLY read that gives you the ids setWordText and removeWords take' and 'getTranscript answers in segments, whose ids belong to a different namespace and are not accepted there.' It also names the sibling alternatives and the condition selecting them.

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