vocametrix_transcribe_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately explains the streaming mechanism (SSE), progress events, polling, and time estimates. It does not mention authentication or file size limits, but the overall transparency is good.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value. No redundant or 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?

The description explains the return values (transcriptionId, progress events, final transcript, word-level timing) despite the lack of an output schema. It gives a time estimate and polling advice. Minor gap: no mention of file size limits or supported formats beyond WAV, but overall sufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions (audioPath and speakerLocale). It does not elaborate on format requirements or locale nuances.

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 function: transcription of an audio file using Azure Speech-to-Text with streaming progress. It specifies the output (transcriptionId, progress events, final transcript with word-level timing), distinguishing it from sibling tools like vocametrix_assess_pronunciation or vocametrix_synthesize_speech.

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 context by mentioning that transcription may take 30–120 seconds and suggests polling progress events for long recordings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, which would raise the score to 5.

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