youtube_get_transcript

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations by explaining language selection behavior: it uses the original/default language and prefers manually created subtitles over ASR-generated ones. This helps the agent understand what transcript it will receive but does not cover potential edge cases like missing transcripts.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences—and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a key behavioral detail without unnecessary fluff.

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 read-only tool with only three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and key behavior. It does not mention failure cases or output format, but annotations and schema cover safety and parameter details, making it complete enough for this tool's complexity.

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 describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the lang parameter defaults to the video's original language and that manual subtitles are preferred over ASR, which supplements the parameter description and agent understanding.

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 clearly states the tool returns the transcript/subtitles of a YouTube video, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like youtube_get_video_info or youtube_get_frame. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource action, so it is clear but not maximally explicit.

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 intended use case is implied by the description: retrieving transcript text for a YouTube video. There is no explicit mention of when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The note about original/default language and manual > ASR gives context but no direct alternatives are named, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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