check_transcription_status

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

The description is marked [EXPERIMENTAL] and outlines polling behavior and expected final statuses. However, it does not describe error handling, response format, or any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but still lacks some behavioral details.

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 concise and well-structured: it states the purpose, provides usage context, gives polling instructions, then lists the argument. Every sentence adds value, though the args section repeats schema info.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should explain the response structure. It only mentions waiting for 'complete' or 'error' status but does not specify what the response contains (e.g., status field, progress). For a simple polling tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 only parameter, job_id, is explained as 'The job ID returned when you started the transcription.' This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only gives the parameter name. With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well.

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 purpose: 'Check the status of a running transcription job.' It also specifies it should be called after starting transcribe_audio, transcribe_to_labels, or transcribe_to_file, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_pipeline_status.

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 explicit when-to-use instructions: 'Call this after starting transcribe_audio, transcribe_to_labels, or transcribe_to_file. Poll every 10-15 seconds until status is complete or error.' This gives clear guidance on the workflow and polling behavior.

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