transcribe_url

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

The description discloses the polling behavior ('Polls until the job is done or the poll timeout elapses') which is not captured by annotations. Annotations indicate the tool is neither read-only nor destructive, so the description adds value by explaining the asynchronous nature.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides behavioral context and output. Every word is necessary, and the structure is front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, polling behavior, and output (preview + link). However, it could mention the format of the preview or potential error conditions to be 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what is already in the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'url', 'diarize', 'language', 'word_timestamps'). No additional semantics are provided.

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 purpose: 'Transcribe audio or video from a URL'. It specifies supported URL types (direct media link, podcast episode, Creative-Commons YouTube) and distinguishes from sibling tools like transcribe_file and transcribe_urls_batch by focusing on single URL input.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (for URL-based media) and implicitly excludes file upload or batch processing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, missing the opportunity to guide the agent away from inappropriate uses.

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