check_transcription_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses [EXPERIMENTAL] status, polling frequency (10-15s), and terminal states ('complete' or 'error'). Minor gap: doesn't mention intermediate states (e.g., 'processing') or error handling for invalid job_ids.

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?

Well-structured with experimental flag front-loaded, followed by purpose, usage workflow, and parameter details. No redundant sentences. Slight inefficiency in having both prose description and Args section for single parameter, but both add value.

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 single-parameter status tool with no output schema, description adequately covers invocation pattern and result interpretation (polling loop). Missing explicit description of return value structure, though 'complete'/'error' hints imply the status field semantics.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description compensates via Args section explaining job_id is 'returned when you started the transcription', providing critical provenance context. Would be a 5 if it included format examples or validation rules.

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?

Description opens with specific verb 'Check' and clear resource 'status of a running transcription job'. The [EXPERIMENTAL] tag adds scope context. Clearly distinguishes from sibling check_pipeline_status by specifying 'transcription' domain.

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 use: 'Call this after starting transcribe_audio, transcribe_to_labels, or transcribe_to_file'. Names specific sibling tools as prerequisites. Provides concrete polling strategy: 'Poll every 10-15 seconds until status is complete or error', giving clear terminal conditions.

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