get_jw_captions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the input behavior (accepts ID or URL, extracts ID from URL) but does not disclose critical traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently uses two sentences to explain input formats with clear examples. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with high schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output (e.g., caption format, structure), error cases, or behavioral constraints, which are crucial for a tool fetching external data. The description does not compensate for these gaps adequately.

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%, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of 'video_id' (e.g., examples of ID and URL formats, automatic extraction from URL), but it does not provide additional details beyond what the schema implies. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.

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 specific action ('fetches video captions') and resource ('from JW.org by video ID or URL'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on Bible verses, Watchtower, or workbook content. It precisely defines what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 implies usage by specifying input formats (video ID or URL) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide context on prerequisites. It offers basic guidance but lacks explicit when/when-not directives or named alternatives.

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