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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral traits beyond annotations: the operation may wait up to 240 seconds, and if not completed it returns a job_id plus a next query action. This gives the agent a clear model of the asynchronous task lifecycle. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then states the timeout and fallback behavior. Every clause provides necessary operational information with no wasted words.

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 largely complete for an async submission tool: it specifies wait time, job_id return, and next-step instruction. The output schema covers return details, and the URL parameter constraints are in the schema. A minor gap is that the 'next query action' is not concretely named, and the sibling by_video_id alternative is not referenced, though both are inferable from 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?

The input schema covers the only parameter, video_url, with 100% coverage and a rich description of accepted URL formats and exclusions. The main tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action (submit a YouTube video speech-to-text task) and the resource (YouTube video by URL). It is obvious what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling youtube_submit_video_speech_text_by_video_id within the description text itself.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the by_video_id variant or when not to use it. The tool name implies the distinction, but the description itself provides no usage context or alternative selection hints.

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