Get transcript reliability

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds what those annotations cannot: the not_computed/empty-spans return state, the precondition that a snapshot must have been produced by the helper endpoint or the user's auto-check setting, and the explicit guarantee that the read never downloads a model. That is meaningful behavior disclosure beyond 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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then routing, then the edge-case return state, then the cost guarantee. No filler and nothing important is buried.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the degenerate return (status not_computed, empty spans) and the side-effect profile. Combined with the single fully-documented parameter, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret an empty result.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that video_id is a stable saved-item identifier rather than necessarily a YouTube ID. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Read stored transcript-reliability spans for a saved item') and immediately differentiates itself from the two nearest siblings, get_uoink_health and export_cited_range, by naming what each of those covers instead. An agent can pick this tool without opening another schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('inspect suspect wording before quoting') plus two named alternatives with the condition that selects each. There is no ambiguity about when to reach for this tool versus its siblings.

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