get_clean_transcript

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: it removes specific content types using SponsorBlock data. It does not mention edge cases like missing SponsorBlock coverage or caption availability, but the core transformation is transparent.

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 filler. The action and cleanup are front-loaded, and the summarization use case is a useful one-line addition.

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 simple fetch tool with fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete. It could improve by stating what happens when SponsorBlock data is unavailable or by describing the return format explicitly, since there is no output schema.

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?

The input schema already fully describes both parameters (url and lang) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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'), a clear resource ('YouTube video transcript'), and a precise transformation ('sponsor reads, intros, outros, self-promotion, and filler removed using SponsorBlock data'). This clearly differentiates 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?

The phrase 'Ideal for summarization' provides a clear intended use case, and the cleanup behavior implies it is for when a raw transcript is too noisy. However, it does not explicitly say when to use get_transcript instead or mention exclusions.

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