list_transcriptions

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds non-obvious behavior: no library total is reported, libraryTotal is populated only for a complete first-page result, and results come back as previews. These are genuine behavioral disclosures beyond the structured fields.

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 dense sentences, all front-loaded with the most important constraint (ONE PAGE, newest first) first. Every sentence carries distinct information about pagination or return shape; no 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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully characterizes the return payload (hasMore, nextCursor, libraryTotal, previews), which an agent needs to paginate correctly. It is nearly complete; only a few filter params (platform, bulkJobId, date range) go unexplained across both schema and description.

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 67%, so the schema documents most params. The description clarifies cursor's relationship to nextCursor and restates the limit default/max, but leaves owner, platform, bulkJobId, requestIdFilter and endDate to the schema (several of which have no schema description at all). It adds value on cursor but doesn't fully compensate for the uncovered params.

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+resource ('list your transcriptions') with a clear scope modifier (ONE PAGE, newest first). It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from sibling list/search tools like search_transcriptions, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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 explains the pagination flow well ('cursor selects a subsequent page', 'hasMore/nextCursor describe pagination'), which implies how to iterate. But it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus search_transcriptions or get_transcription, and no when-not-to-use exclusions.

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