Transcribe URL (wait)

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the synchronous blocking nature, timeout handling, and asynchronous fallback. However, it does not explicitly describe the successful return value (presumably the transcript), which is a minor gap.

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 concise sentences front-loading the core action, usage guidance, and alternative. No extraneous words; every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

While usage and timeout behavior are well-covered, the description omits the nature of a successful response (e.g., job object vs. transcript text). Without an output schema, this gap reduces completeness for a 5-parameter tool.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage). The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond reaffirming the URL requirement. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('start transcription from a public HTTPS URL') and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling start_job_url by specifying use case (short/medium media needing immediate transcript vs. long audio for polling).

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?

Explicitly states when to prefer this tool ('short/medium media when you need the transcript in this turn'), timeout behavior ('returns job_id — then call get_job_status'), and when to use alternative ('For long audio you plan to poll yourself, use start_job_url instead').

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