get_recording_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the summary is unverified and suggests the field name ('content' or 'text'), but does not cover auth needs, rate limits, error cases, or other behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, includes necessary details about unverified status and field location, and has a clear args section. It is concise but could trim the reference to another tool's description.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description provides the input source, output format hints, and accuracy note. It is complete enough for basic 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?

The sole parameter audio_id has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning by stating it comes from list_recordings and is the recording's _id, providing context beyond the schema's 'Audio Id' title.

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 it returns the raw AI-generated summary feed for one audioId. The verb 'Returns' and specific resource 'raw AI-generated summary feed' are explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool get_recording_transcript beyond mentioning similarity.

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 implies usage by specifying the required audio_id from list_recordings, but does not provide when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_recording_transcript. No exclusions or context for when not to use.

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