transcribe_audio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying the return behavior: it returns either full text or a partial transcription with a pending flag, and notes the Telegram Premium requirement. This gives the agent a better understanding of possible outcomes.

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 two short sentences in Russian, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place: the main function, the Premium caveat, and the return behavior. There is no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the output schema, and the annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, the premium requirement, and the possibility of a partial transcription with a pending flag. However, it does not mention any prerequisites or error conditions (e.g., the message must contain voice), but these are reasonably implied by the tool name 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description provides no explanation of the 'chat' and 'message_id' parameters. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation. It does not clarify types, formats, or how to identify the message to transcribe, so the agent must infer semantics from the parameter names alone.

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 function: 'Transcribe voice to text' (Транскрибировать голосовое в текст). It identifies the specific action (transcribe), the resource (voice/audio), and the output format (text or partial transcription). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which offer transcription functionality.

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 mentions that this is a Telegram Premium feature, which is a usage constraint, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Since there are no direct sibling tools for transcription, the context is clear but the guidance is minimal.

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