Get transcription by Message ID

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful access context – the exact HTTP method, 'Token: location', and required scope 'conversations/message.readonly' – which the annotations do not convey.

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 text is short but opens by repeating the title verbatim ('Get transcription by Message ID'), and the body is a run-on sentence. It packs route, token, and scope compactly, yet the redundancy makes it less crisp than it should be.

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 two-parameter read with strong annotations, the endpoint, token, and scope are effectively covered. The lack of an output schema means the description could have added what the response contains or whether it returns raw text, but this is a moderate gap rather than a fatal one.

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 coverage is 100%: both required parameters are documented as strings, and the description reinforces locationId/messageId via the REST path. The description adds no format or additional semantics beyond the schema, 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?

The description names the exact action ('Get') and resource ('recording transcription for a message') and provides the full REST path, so intent is clear. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling audio-recording and download-transcription tools, but the resource is unambiguous enough.

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 implies the use case: pass a message ID to fetch its transcription, and includes the required token/scope. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over conversations_get_message_recording or conversations_download_message_transcription, leaving some selection ambiguity among sibling transcription tools.

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