Transkrio

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world nature, but the description adds material context beyond them: the tool costs 1 credit on success, defaults to plain text, and offers timestamp/SRT/VTT variants. The "on success" qualifier usefully implies failed calls are not billed, though failure modes (no captions, private video) go unmentioned.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by output options and then cost. Every clause carries information; no filler or repetition of the title.

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-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return formats and cost well enough to invoke correctly. The remaining gap is error behavior — what an agent gets when no transcript or requested language is unavailable — which matters because "best available" language resolution is not explained.

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 the schema already documents url, lang, format, and timestamps thoroughly, including the enum meanings. The description adds little beyond restating the text/timestamps/SRT/VTT modes and omits mention of the json format and lang selection, so the 3 baseline applies.

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 and resource ("Get the full transcript (captions) of a YouTube video") plus the return variants. The name/title pair is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings get_video_metadata and list_videos, which deal with metadata and collections rather than caption text.

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 named — an agent can infer it should call this when it needs caption text rather than metadata. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use framing, and neither sibling is named as an alternative (e.g., fall back to get_video_metadata when a video has no captions).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-dependency context is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information by disclosing the 1-credit cost and that it is charged only on success. However, it says nothing about failure modes, quota or rate limits, or restrictions for private/region-locked videos.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields and ending with the cost caveat. No filler, though the field enumeration is a long comma list that could have been tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing every returned field, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Cost behavior plus the fully documented parameter makes this complete for a one-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single url parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the accepted URL forms and 11-character id alternative. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Get ... of a YouTube video") and enumerates exactly which metadata fields come back, so an agent knows what it will receive. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_transcript, and the mention of "available caption languages" slightly blurs the boundary with that tool.

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 only implied: fetch metadata for a given video URL. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_transcript, nor any precondition such as the video being public or the URL being valid.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description adds two pieces of genuinely useful behavior: cost ("Costs 1 credit on success") and sort order (newest first for channels). It doesn't discuss pagination or what happens when a channel has more than `limit` uploads, which keeps it off a 5.

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 short sentences: capability and return fields first, then the routing guidance, then the cost note. Nothing is redundant with the schema and every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields, plus it discloses credit cost and ordering for a two-parameter read tool. The only gap is behavior around large results (pagination or truncation past `limit`), which is minor for a read-only list operation.

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 the url and limit semantics are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description implies that a channel input yields "recent uploads" while a playlist yields the full list, which adds a little meaning about how `limit` interacts with input type, but no format or edge-case detail beyond that.

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 and resource ("List the videos ... of a YouTube playlist or channel") and even enumerates the returned fields (id, title, duration, URL), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. The playlist-vs-channel distinction and the "newest first for channels" ordering rule further separate it from get_transcript and get_video_metadata.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule: "Use it before get_transcript to work on a whole playlist or a channel's recent uploads." That names the sibling and the condition that selects this tool. It stops short of saying when to prefer get_video_metadata for a single video, so not a full 5.

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