transcribe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: cost per call ($0.030), wallet requirement, no API key needed, x402 payment mechanism, and hard input limits. This fully discloses operational impact and prerequisites without contradicting annotations.

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 front-loaded with the most important operational fact (cost and wallet requirement). Each sentence adds distinct information: what it does, how to invoke it, payment model, and limits. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return value details are not the description's responsibility. The description covers cost, authentication (none needed but wallet required), the exact model, input constraints, and supported formats. An agent can confidently invoke this tool correctly without needing additional context.

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 100%, so both parameters (url and language) are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the url parameter with file format examples and adds practical constraints (max duration/size), but adds no new meaning about the optional language parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 the action ('Transcribe audio to text'), the specific model ('gpt-4o-mini-transcribe'), and the input/output format ('provide a URL ... get back the transcript'). This is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which mention audio transcription.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when an audio URL needs to be converted to text. It includes explicit constraints ('Max 5 minutes of audio, 25 MB file size') that help select appropriate inputs. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool offers transcription, so the usage context is sufficient.

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