youtube_get_transcript

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful output-shaping behavior (default is 'both', 'text' roughly halves response size, intervals are half-open) but says nothing about failure modes such as missing captions or language fallback, nor about rate limits.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and parameter guidance grouped afterwards. Some of the format enumeration duplicates the schema wording, but nothing is padded and the size is proportionate.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return shape, and it only implies it through the format options (fullText, timestamped segments). It is complete enough on output sizing but leaves the actual response fields, pagination/truncation signaling above 5000 segments, and transcript-unavailable behavior unexplained.

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 every parameter including videoId, language, startTime/endTime, format, and maxSegments is already documented in the schema. The description largely restates those same semantics (format options, seconds-based ranges, maxSegments cap) without adding format details the schema lacks.

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 and resource ('Get the transcript of a YouTube video') and immediately scopes it with concrete output controls. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like youtube_get_video_info, youtube_search, or youtube_download.

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?

Gives practical guidance on choosing a format, grabbing a section with startTime/endTime, and capping output with maxSegments, and explicitly notes that time ranges 'pair well with chapter timestamps from youtube_get_video_info'. It stops short of stating when to prefer this tool over siblings for content retrieval generally.

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