List transcript languages

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it consumes one transcript unit, can populate the cache, is not free, never starts generation, and cached results can have a generated source. This meaningfully enriches the raw annotation flags.

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 short sentences, each adding important operational information with no redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by cost and side-effect caveats.

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 single-parameter tool with a full output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral nuances: cost, cache effects, generation behavior, and the possibility of generated cached sources. Nothing critical appears 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents url as a public YouTube URL or 11-character video ID. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return languages observed by a native transcript request.' It also distinguishes the tool from a generic metadata lookup by stating it consumes a transcript unit, which helps differentiate it from the sibling transcript tools.

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 contextual guidance: this is not a free metadata lookup, it consumes a transcript unit, and it never starts generation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer get_transcript_status or get_youtube_transcript instead.

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