get_transcript

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial context on top: the segment fields returned, that speaker is null when unavailable, and that a missing transcript yields an error rather than empty data. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return format, then the input forms, then the failure mode and exclusion. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully carries the burden: it describes the return structure, the null-field convention, the error case, and the non-generative limitation. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the two accepted forms. The description restates 'Accepts an HTTPS share URL or video ID' without adding format, validation, or conversion details beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 a Loom transcript') plus the return shape ('JSON text with timestamped segments'), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It never names the sibling tools get_video or get_frames, so differentiation is left implicit.

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 sets a clear scope boundary with 'Does not generate or modify transcripts' and discloses the failure mode when no transcript exists, which implies when the tool is applicable. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over get_video or get_frames, so routing must be inferred from the names.

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