check_transcription_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses polling expectations and terminal statuses ('complete' or 'error'), which is useful. However, it does not describe the full response shape, behavior on invalid job IDs, or whether repeated calls are idempotent, leaving some ambiguity for a no-annotation tool.

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 compact and scannable: a label, a short usage direction, a polling instruction, and a one-line args section. Every sentence is functional, and the critical usage context is front-loaded. No filler or repetitive content exists.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: when to call, how often to poll, and when to stop. It implies a status field with values 'complete' or 'error,' which is likely enough for an agent. It could be more complete by stating exact response fields or error behavior, but it is adequate for its simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that job_id is 'The job ID returned when you started the transcription,' which adds provenance and meaning beyond the bare schema property name. This is sufficient for the single required parameter, though a bit more detail on format or where to find it could push it higher.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check the status of a running transcription job.' It also references the transcription-starting siblings, which clarifies its role in the workflow. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from check_pipeline_status or command_status, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Call this after starting transcribe_audio, transcribe_to_labels, or transcribe_to_file.' It also provides a polling cadence and termination conditions. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks the exclusionary guidance of a perfect score.

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