list_transcripts_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the listing includes languages and type, which is useful, but says nothing about the video source, whether captions may be absent, permissions, or rate limits. For a low-risk read it is adequate but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the purpose and the returned fields are packed into one clause. Appropriately sized, though the parenthetical could be slightly tighter.

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 values need not be explained, and a one-parameter read-only listing tool needs little more than this. The main omission is any routing against the three sibling tools.

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% and the single 'url' parameter is undocumented in both places. The parameter name is largely self-evident for a video tool, but the description does nothing to clarify whether it expects a video page URL or an ID, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('captions/transcripts available for a video'), and even indicates what the list contains (languages and type). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_transcript_tool, which an agent must infer is the fetch counterpart.

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 implies a discovery step (list what's available before fetching), but never states when to use this versus get_transcript_tool or get_video_info_tool. No prerequisites, auth needs, or exclusions are given, leaving usage to inference.

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