get_attachment_transcription

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest and does so well: it discloses the transcription prerequisite, the max_chars truncation cap and its default, the truncated flag signal, and that the caller can raise the limit. It omits whether transcription is asynchronous or how long it may take, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose and formats, then preconditions, then the truncation caveat. The truncation paragraph partially duplicates the schema's max_chars description, but no sentence is 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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained, and the description still flags the truncated field. Inputs are fully covered by the schema and the preconditions are stated, leaving only the no-transcription recovery path unaddressed.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including per-format meanings and max_chars semantics. The description largely restates the max_chars default and truncation behavior rather than adding new syntax or edge-case guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (attachment transcription) plus the three output formats. An agent can distinguish it from get_answer_attachment (the raw attachment) and retranscribe_attachment (generation), though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Clearly states the precondition — the attachment must have been uploaded with transcription options — and the negative case (file without transcription, or non-audio/video, has nothing to retrieve). It does not, however, route the agent to retranscribe_attachment when no transcription exists, which would be the natural alternative.

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