get_transcript

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it explains the failure path (captions may definitively not exist) and the fallback behavior, plus the two flag fields returned. It omits auth/rate-limit/billing behavior in the description itself (billing lives in the schema), leaving a small gap.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and input scope, then the failure/retry contract. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padded.

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 helpfully names the returned fallback fields and the retry contract, which is the key knowledge an agent needs. It stops short of describing transcript payload shape or partial-failure cases, but it is adequate for a 2-parameter tool.

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 baseline is 3; the description still adds value by naming the accepted URL forms for 'video' and, more importantly, by specifying that ai_fallback should only be set after a prior call reported aiFallback.available — sequencing that the schema alone does not convey.

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 ('Fetch the full transcript for a video') and immediately scopes the accepted inputs (YouTube ID/URL, TikTok, Instagram, direct media). No sibling tool covers transcripts, so the agent can tell it apart from get_credits/search_videos at a glance.

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 an explicit conditional flow: if no transcript is returned, check aiFallback.captionsUnavailable/available, then call again with ai_fallback: true when available. That is clear when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., listing a channel first).

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