Transcript Get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the read source (disk, persisted file), clarifying it is not a live Google call, and summarizing the return contents (enriched metadata and markdown body). It does not cover error cases or the effect of includeBody=false, but core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two coherent sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every phrase earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 simple 2-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential scenario: what is fetched, from where, and what is returned. It is sufficient for basic usage, though it could be slightly stronger by explicitly contrasting with the sibling MeetTranscriptGet or TranscriptList tools.

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 100% and includes a thorough transcriptId explanation (accepts full name, uses last segment) plus includeBody default. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description starts with a specific action ('Fetch') and resource ('previously-persisted Meet transcript'), and names the key identifier (transcriptId). The clarification 'not live from Google' distinguishes it from possible live transcript siblings, making purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a transcriptId and want the persisted copy rather than a live one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'not live from Google' and 'read from disk' phrasing gives practical usage context.

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