Get transcript

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses significant behavior: the automatic transcript_id resolution, the polling mechanism with wait, and the output fields (speaker, transcript). This adds substantial context that annotations alone do not provide, and there is no contradiction.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value (auto-resolution, wait behavior, output fields). It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the key flow: fetching by bot_id, auto-resolution, polling, and output structure. It does not address error cases or pagination, but these are minor given the simplicity. It is reasonably complete, so a 4.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for the wait parameter (poll until ready after a specific event) and clarifies bot_id's role, but it does not explain raw or timeout_seconds beyond the schema. The added value is modest, so a 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'transcript by bot_id', with the added detail that it resolves transcript_id automatically. It distinguishes itself from a simple list operation by mentioning the auto-resolution, but it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It explains the context for using wait=true (poll until ready after transcription.processed fires) and the reason the tool exists (transcript_id is not in webhooks, so it resolves it via /detail → /transcriptions). It gives clear when-to-use guidance but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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