Get a transcript

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: credit costs with a concrete pricing formula, the free `transcript_unavailable` outcome when captions are missing and long transcription is not allowed, and free cached continuations. This is exactly the cost/side-effect information an agent needs before invoking a metered tool.

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?

Five tight sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the core purpose and platform detection front-loaded before cost and pagination details. No filler or restatement of the name/title.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description names the return fields (text, language, source, duration) and explains how paged results are continued. For a six-parameter, credit-metered, paginated tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it ties `offset` to `text_window.next_offset`, explains that continuations are free from cache, and warns that `include_timestamps` doubles payload size and `allow_long_transcription` is a paid escalation. Only the `language` and `max_chars` semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 video or audio post from its URL) plus the scope detail that the platform is auto-detected. 'Transcript' is a distinct resource from the sibling get_post/get_comments tools, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 concrete conditional guidance: captions are preferred, AI transcription is the fallback, and if `text_window.next_offset` is set you must call again with that offset. It also tells the agent to ask before spending credits on long AI transcription. It does not explicitly compare against siblings like get_post or describe, which keeps it below a 5.

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