get_transcript_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the task is async, returns status/progress/result, and advises polling until terminal states. This is sufficient for a simple status-checking tool, though it doesn't mention potential errors or rate limits.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences covering purpose, return value, and usage pattern. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains purpose, return type, and when to call. It's complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it doesn't detail the response structure beyond high-level fields.

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 schema already provides a clear description for task_id, and the description reinforces that it comes from transcribe_url or transcribe_file. With 100% schema coverage, the description doesn't add new parameter semantics, meeting the baseline.

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 checks the status of an async transcription task. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that initiate transcription (transcribe_url/transcribe_file) or list transcripts (list_transcripts).

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?

It explicitly instructs to poll periodically until status is 'completed' or 'failed', providing clear usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it versus listing or initiating, though the sibling names make those exclusions obvious.

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