hear

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'reading the result as text before anything encodes' but does not explain what 'encodes' means, whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or has rate limits. Important behaviors like output format or side effects are missing.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and avoids redundancy. Every word serves a purpose with no wasted space.

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?

While the description explains the core transcription function, it omits details about the return format (how timings are represented), the role of 'tier' and 'consent', and does not compensate for the lack of an output schema. Given four parameters and no output schema, the description is not fully complete.

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 100% with minimal per-parameter descriptions (e.g., 'A source handle', 'draft, local, or cloud.'). The tool description adds meaning by stating the tool transcribes to words with timings and reads as text, enriching the context beyond the schema alone.

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 transcribes a source to words with timings, using a specific verb ('transcribe') and resource (source). It also adds nuance about reading the result as text before encoding, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'caption'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'caption', 'draft', or 'sound'. The description only states what it does without offering context on when it is appropriate or not.

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