get_transcript

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, not destructive. Description adds extensive behavioral context: lazy/paginated, ~8k token cap, truncation signal, next_start_ms continuation, format details (segments/text/srt), and wall clock vs relative timing. No contradictions.

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 core action and format options. Contains multiple examples and anti-examples which are helpful but slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, but length could be trimmed slightly without losing clarity.

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 complexity (pagination, truncation, multiple formats, wall clock vs relative), the description is complete. Covers pagination strategy, token cap, continuation, format choices, and timing correlation. Output schema exists but not needed.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, but the description explains start_ms, end_ms, format, and job_id through examples and text (e.g., default format='segments', timing ranges). Adds meaning beyond schema, though could be more structured per parameter.

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 function: 'Retrieve the transcript of a processed job, lazily and paginated.' It distinguishes from siblings like search and get_moment, specifying exact resources and scope.

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?

Explicit 'When NOT to use' section with alternatives (search, get_moment) and anti-examples. Provides clear context on when this tool is appropriate, e.g., for full transcript retrieval vs keyword search.

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