get_transcript

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses fallback behavior ('Falls back to any available'), the effect of timestamps, and the max_chars cutoff. It does not explicitly state read-only status, but 'fetch' implies a non-mutating operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a tight bullet-style parameter list. Every line adds distinct value and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 an output schema present, the tool's return shape is covered elsewhere. The description addresses parameter semantics, input variants, and behavioral fallbacks. Minor gaps include lack of explicit error behavior when captions are unavailable, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It explains each parameter with concrete formats, examples, defaults, and behavioral effects, giving the agent everything needed to provide valid inputs.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a YouTube video's captions as text.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like get_video_info or list_channel_videos.

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 useful input-format context (URL types, language fallback) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings or mention any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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