Read a transcript

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it explains why readOnlyHint=false (it will start transcription as a side effect), that it waits by default even for an in-progress upload, and that the default target is the last recording. This reconciles the apparent tension between a "read" tool and a non-readOnly annotation, which is exactly the value the description should add.

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?

Front-loaded with the plan gate and prerequisite, then the core action, then defaults. Sentences are dense but each carries information; minor redundancy is repeating the format enum already documented in the schema.

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?

Covers prerequisites, side effects, waiting semantics and defaults, which is most of what a five-parameter, no-required-param tool needs. With no output schema, it would benefit from one line on what comes back (plain text vs. VTT payload) and what happens if the plan check fails.

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% and the description largely restates the schema's format enum and the videoId default. It does add one genuinely new constraint — that a local-only recording must be uploaded before it can be referenced — but wait/start/timeoutMs behavior is left entirely to the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Read back what was said in a Recordful video" names a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_video, list_videos and get_status. It also states the plan scope (Recordful Pro only) up front, so an agent can tell immediately whether this tool applies.

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?

Strong routing context: check get_status recorder.account.plan first, and call upload_recording first if the recording exists only on this computer. What it lacks is an explicit negative case (e.g., when to prefer get_video or what to do if the plan check fails), so it lands just short of a 5.

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