Get transcript

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses billing behavior (costs 1 credit, metadata call avoids an extra charge), default track behavior (manual vs auto fallback), segment defaulting per track type, and format-specific output differences. It also notes that srv3 does not combine with segment. These are meaningful non-obvious behaviors.

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 longer than average but information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then the billing optimization, then format choices and usage preferences. A small amount of repetition with the schema descriptions exists (e.g., format meanings), but every sentence contributes functional value.

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 tool with 6 parameters, an output schema present, and related sibling tools, the description covers the important edge cases: metadata inclusion, cost avoidance, format trade-offs, track selection, and segmentation behavior. An agent gets enough context to call this tool effectively without additional exploration.

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 parameters, but the description adds substantial semantics beyond it: cost implications of video_metadata, format selection guidance, and track-specific segment defaults. This is helpful and non-redundant.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the transcript (subtitles) of a YouTube video.' It also clarifies accepted inputs ('video id or any YouTube URL'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_video_info and the get_transcripts_* job tools. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: it instructs the agent to set video_metadata=true to avoid a separate billed get_video_info call, explains when to prefer specific formats ('Prefer text unless you need timestamps or a file'), and gives segment sizing advice for embeddings/retrieval. This is strong usage direction.

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