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

The description adds the behavioral trait of bulk execution (accepting multiple file_ids), which is not covered by the annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like error handling, response format, or whether it returns partial data. The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature, so the added value is moderate.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is well-structured, with the primary purpose stated first and the bulk support note second. No unnecessary words or repetition – it effectively communicates the core functionality in a minimal space.

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?

The description is complete enough for a basic understanding but lacks important context. It does not specify what 'details' include (e.g., metadata, transcription, audio URL) or any return format. Given the existence of sibling tools for notes and transcript, it's unclear if this tool returns all of that or just basic info. The absence of output schema also leaves room for ambiguity, making it less than fully complete.

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 schema includes three parameters (account, file_id, file_ids). The description only partially explains file_ids (bulk support) and does not clarify the role of 'account' or 'file_id' individually. Given the low coverage (only one parameter is implicitly mentioned), the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 that the tool retrieves details of a Plaud recording by ID, using a specific verb ('get details') and resource ('recording'). It is distinct from siblings like plaud_get_notes or plaud_get_transcript, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The term 'details' is somewhat vague but sufficient for a basic understanding.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions bulk support via file_ids, which is more about parameter usage than selection criteria. There is no indication of scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, such as when a full recording object is needed versus just notes or transcript.

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