transcript

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Quota Cost +1', which is useful context about resource consumption, but doesn't cover other important aspects like rate limits, error handling, authentication needs, or what the transcript output looks like (e.g., format, language support). The description adds some value but is incomplete for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences, but the second sentence 'Quota Cost +1' feels tacked on without proper integration. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, but could be more structured. There's no wasted text, but it borders on under-specification rather than elegant brevity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters. It mentions quota cost but misses critical context like what the transcript output contains, language handling details, cache behavior implications, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. For a data retrieval tool in a YouTube-focused server, this leaves significant gaps.

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 all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between parameters or provide examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Get Transcript' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it doesn't specify what type of transcript (YouTube video transcript based on the input schema) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'subtitles' or 'converttranslatedownload_subtitle'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity and sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'subtitles' or 'converttranslatedownload_subtitle'. The description only mentions quota cost, which is a behavioral trait, not usage context. There's no indication of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison to sibling tools.

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