get_video_transcript

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it discloses the long-polling/blocking nature, per-mode credit costs (1 credit captions_only, 2 credits/started minute for auto), and cache behavior that avoids re-charging. These are exactly the cost and latency traits an agent must know before invoking, and none are in the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the core action and mechanism, then layers usage and cost hints in a small number of dense sentences. Slightly packed, but every clause (polling, formats, credits, cache) carries information an agent needs.

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 still tells the agent what comes back (transcript text or srt/vtt/segments) and what happens on timeout (job state returned). Combined with documented cost/latency behavior, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% with enum descriptions and defaults already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces mode costs and the output format options (text/srt/vtt/segments) but adds little syntax or semantics not already in 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+resource (get the transcript of a YouTube or TikTok video) and even explains the internal two-phase mechanism (submit job, long-poll, return text). It implicitly separates itself from get_job/wait_for_job by saying 'in one step', but never names the siblings get_transcript or transcribe, which an agent would need to disambiguate.

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 clear when-to-use guidance ('what does this video say' questions) and a concrete selection rule for the mode parameter (default captions_only, auto to fall back when no captions). No explicit when-not or named-alternative routing, so it stops short of a 5.

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