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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the transcription mechanism (platform subtitles when available, speech-to-text as fallback) and the cost model ($2/1,000 subtitle, $5/1,000 speech-to-text). It omits runtime, rate limits, or failure behavior, but cost and method are the traits an agent most needs here.

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?

Three sentences, each load-bearing: coverage/scope first, mechanism second, billing third. No filler and nothing buried.

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 5-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, mechanism, and cost adequately, and the schema fills in parameter detail. It does not address return shape or the practical distinction between passing urls versus profiles, which is a minor remaining gap.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description adds only a general statement of platform coverage and subtitle-vs-STT behavior, with no extra semantics for language, profiles, includeSegments, or maxVideosPerProfile.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (transcripts) and enumerates the exact platform coverage (TikTok, Instagram Reels, YouTube videos/Shorts, X). No sibling tool (find_tiktok_creators, find_youtube_channel_emails) overlaps with this resource, so the agent can route cleanly without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name and the schema's urls/profiles inputs, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. An agent can infer intent but gets no routing help.

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