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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well by disclosing that the tool costs 1 Spark, requires a Spark code, works on public videos, and returns plain text. It does not cover failure modes such as private videos, invalid codes, or insufficient Sparks, which limits it to a 4.

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 compact sentences with no wasted language. The core action and return format are front-loaded, and the Spark/code note follows efficiently.

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 or annotations, but the description identifies the return format as plain text, the supported platforms, the cost, and the required account code. It could be more complete about error conditions, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 fully documents the url, code, and timestamps parameters. The description mentions timestamps but does not add syntax or clarify that timestamps default to false, and it slightly implies timestamps are always included.

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 states a specific verb and resource: fetch the full transcript of a public video. It also names supported platforms and the return format, so the tool's function is unambiguous.

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?

It clearly scopes usage to public videos on major platforms and notes the Spark cost and required code. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the single-purpose nature makes the context sufficiently clear.

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