Read an episode transcript

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add behavior beyond that. It adds significant value: format auto-detection (SRT, WebVTT, JSON, HTML), windowed reading with remaining/offset feedback, and the note that only JSON carries speaker names. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence carries operational information: purpose, format handling, pagination behavior, the alternative tool, and the availability caveat. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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 three simple parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return format, how long transcripts are chunked, how to continue reading, and that transcripts are often unavailable. An agent has enough context to call it correctly and interpret the response.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema for the format parameter, explaining that the default is the richest available format because JSON carries speaker labels, and it reinforces offset's role in windowed continuation. This pushes it above baseline.

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 states a specific action ('Fetch and read the actual transcript'), the resource (an episode transcript), and the output shape (timestamped text with speaker labels). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from search_transcript, making it identifiable among many sibling tools.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: use this tool to read an entire transcript, and use search_transcript instead when looking for one specific moment because it is a single call rather than paging. It also warns that most episodes do not have transcripts, setting realistic expectations.

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