voice_to_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions downloading and transcribing but omits critical details like rate limits, authentication needs, file size constraints, error handling, or output behavior. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that performs external operations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, with no wasted information.

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 complexity (external download and transcription), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, output details, or usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective agent use.

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 33% (only 'language' has a description), so the description must compensate. It implies the 'url' parameter by mentioning 'audio file from URL' and hints at transcription output, but doesn't explain 'outputFormat' or 'language' beyond the schema. The description adds minimal value, meeting the baseline for low coverage without fully addressing the gaps.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('download' and 'transcribe') and resources ('audio file from URL' to 'text'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'video_to_text' by specifying audio rather than video. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the sibling differentiation, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'video_to_text' or other transcription methods. It lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, offering only a basic functional statement without usage instructions.

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