youtube_transcript

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that setting format to text/srt/vtt yields plain-text output instead of the standard response, but does not explain error states (e.g., missing captions), authentication needs, or rate limits. Adequate but minimal.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. First sentence states purpose clearly; second provides actionable format usage. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lacks explanation of the standard response envelope, timestamps parameter behavior, and default language behavior. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, it is incomplete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the format parameter behavior (plain-text output), but does not enhance semantics for id, lang, translate_to, or timestamps beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Retrieve transcript for a YouTube video' with a specific verb and resource. It mentions using 'YouTube's native player captions,' which adds detail. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'youtube_captions', which may overlap in functionality.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'youtube_captions' or 'youtube_transcript_languages'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., video must have captions) or context for language parameters.

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