get_youtube_transcript

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses only a performance claim ('in milliseconds', 'Zero GPU'). It says nothing about failure modes that matter here — private, age-restricted, or caption-less videos, live streams, region blocks, rate limits, or whether any auth is required. The default of with_timestamps=true is also never reconciled with the promise of 'timestamps' in the output.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and target lead. The parenthetical '(Zero GPU)' is marketing framing rather than useful signal, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, but with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter descriptions the definition leaves too much unsaid for a two-parameter extraction tool. The main gaps are failure conditions for unavailable transcripts and the role of with_timestamps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'YouTube video URL' gives weak format guidance for the required url parameter (no accepted URL variants or video-ID forms), and the with_timestamps parameter is never mentioned at all despite defaulting to true.

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 combination ('Extract full text transcript and timestamps') applied to a specific source ('any YouTube video URL'), which is unambiguous. It does not name a sibling because none of the listed tools overlaps with YouTube content, so no disambiguation is needed. A 4 rather than a 5 because the phrasing never frames scope relative to the generic scrape_url/extract_structured family an agent might otherwise reach for.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when NOT to use it, and no alternative named. An agent must infer on its own that this is preferable to scrape_url for youtube.com links, and nothing says what happens with non-YouTube URLs or videos without captions.

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