get_clean_transcript

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key behavior: the transcript is cleaned by removing specific segment types using SponsorBlock data. However, it does not mention fallback behavior when SponsorBlock has no coverage, potential lossiness of segment removal, or failure modes, which an agent should know before relying on 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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler: the core fetch-and-clean behavior is front-loaded, followed by a single high-value use-case hint. Every word 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?

For a transformation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the main operation and data source but omits caveats an agent would want: behavior when SponsorBlock has no data for the video, and whether the result preserves timestamps or is a plain text blob. Adequate for the summarization use case it advertises, but not fully complete.

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%, with both url and lang already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('YouTube video transcript'), and the defining transformation (removal of sponsor reads, intros, outros, self-promotion, and filler via SponsorBlock). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_transcript, which presumably returns the raw transcript.

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?

'Ideal for summarization' gives a clear, concrete context for when to choose this tool over alternatives. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming get_transcript as the raw-transcript alternative, so it misses the top tier.

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