transcribe_video

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds genuinely new operational context: 1 credit per new job, free reuse of matching existing transcripts, and no storage quota. It does not explain what the destructiveHint implies (e.g. credit consumption or job side effects), leaving that annotation unexplained.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences that each carry information: purpose first, then supported platforms, then the two cost rules. Slightly compressed and no wasted clauses, though the cost/reuse lines sit after the platform list rather than being grouped.

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?

For a tool that creates jobs, consumes credits and has no output schema, the description covers cost and reuse well but never says what is returned, how long the blocking wait may take, or how to fetch a transcript later. Those gaps are meaningful given the absence of an output schema, though existing transcripts being reused is well communicated.

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 both parameters (url and includeComments) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema carries the load.

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 ('Submit a video URL for transcription and wait for the result') and enumerates the supported platforms (Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook), which concisely delimits scope. It does not name any sibling, so the split from get_transcription or transcribe_bulk must be inferred from the submit-vs-retrieve wording.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this to obtain a transcript for a single video URL. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to alternatives like get_transcription for retrieval or transcribe_bulk for multiple URLs.

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