get_transcription_properties

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose response shape, whether transcription properties can be absent, error behavior, or any access requirements.

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 one concise sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no wasted phrases. It is efficient, though it leaves room for more useful context without becoming verbose.

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?

With simple, well-documented parameters, the call is minimally viable. However, there is no output schema and no annotation, so the agent is not told what 'transcription properties' includes or what the response should look like.

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 schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond connecting the operation to an asset version.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get transcription properties for an asset version'), so the tool's purpose is immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_transcription_subtitles, but the phrasing is clear enough to identify the operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_transcription_subtitles or other asset/version getters. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection conditions are provided; the only contextual clue is 'for an asset version'.

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