Get transcription status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: no model download and no transcription started, which is exactly the side effect an agent would worry about. It stops short of detailing failure modes (e.g. what availability=false looks like), keeping it at 4.

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 sentences, zero waste: capability, then when-to-use with both alternatives, then the negative-behavior guarantee about returns. Front-loaded with the core verb and scope.

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 must signal what comes back, and it does ('Returns availability and supported model settings'), plus the no-download/no-start guarantee. It doesn't enumerate the returned fields, which would help a diagnostic tool slightly, but everything needed to call it is present.

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?

Zero-parameter tool, so baseline is 4. The description correctly implies it takes no input and instead reports on ambient state, which is the right semantic framing.

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 (Inspect) and three specific resources (local WhisperX availability, the selected model, the diarization default). It explicitly contrasts with both relevant siblings, transcribe_podcast_episode and get_job_status, so an agent can place it without opening the 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 explicit when-to-use: 'Use before transcribe_podcast_episode to identify missing runtime prerequisites.' It also routes the alternative case: 'use get_job_status to monitor an already queued transcription.' No inference required.

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