get_transcript

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds important behavioral details: returns a 300-character preview plus a link, and large transcripts are not inlined. This goes beyond what annotations provide and gives clear expectations about the response structure.

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?

Two concise sentences, each serving a clear purpose: first states the core action and format capability, second explains output behavior. No extraneous information.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, format flexibility, and return characteristics (preview + link, large transcript behavior). It is comprehensive enough for the tool's complexity.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, e.g., the format parameter is fully enumerated in the schema. The baseline of 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 tool fetches finished transcripts in a requested format, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like transcribe_file and transcribe_url which create transcripts, and list_recent_jobs/get_job_status which are for listing or checking status.

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?

The description implies usage only for finished transcripts and notes that large transcripts are not inlined. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for ongoing jobs) or mention alternative tools for checking job status before calling this tool.

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