Get video transcript

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and idempotent nont-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: transcripts are paginated with page_words and next_cursor, timestamps=false returns clean text versus true returning [m:ss] chunks, and start/end restrict to a time range. This is exactly the kind of context agents need.

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?

The description is compact and every sentence adds value. It leads with the core function, then covers authentication/quota, pagination, timestamp modes, and time-range limiting. No redundant phrases or filler.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent about the pagination cursor, the format of timestamped chunks, and how to limit by time. It also explains the tradeoff between clean text and timestamped text, which is essential for selecting the right invocation. Combined with schema descriptions for the remaining parameters, this is complete enough for correct use.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description compensates for the undocumented 'video' parameter by clarifying it accepts an ID or URL. It also explains the behavior of page_words, cursor, timestamps, start, and end. Some parameters like languages, translate_to, and chunk_seconds are not described in prose, but the schema already covers them, so the overall parameter semantics are strong.

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: 'Get a video's transcript (ID or URL).' It is immediately clear what the tool does and how it differs from sibling tools like list_transcripts, which likely lists available transcripts rather than fetching content.

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 gives clear usage context: no API key or quota needed, pagination with cursor, and parameter-driven modes for summarizing vs citing. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the practical guidance is strong enough for an agent to know when to use this tool.

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