Get Video Transcript

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or transcript availability constraints, but doesn't contradict 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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core purpose efficiently. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 the tool's low complexity, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values (e.g., transcript format), and it lacks context like authentication needs, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'transcript of a YouTube video', which implies the 'videoId' parameter but adds no semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or language code specifics.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('transcript of a YouTube video'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'videos_getVideo' or 'videos_getComments', which also retrieve YouTube content but different types, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'videos_getVideo' for general video info, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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