Submit transcripts batch

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

The description discloses the asynchronous execution model (background processing after immediate job_id), the billing dimension ('Costs 1 credit per video, charged on submit'), deduplication, and the auth requirement (sk_... key). All of this goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and enriches the agent's picture of side effects. No contradiction with 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?

Five sentences that are all load-bearing: the core value, the when-to-use rule, the input source, the follow-up workflow, and the costs/dedup/auth. It is front-loaded with the most critical information first and contains no filler or restatement of schema 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?

For an async batch operation with 7 parameters, the description covers the entry criterion (many videos vs handful), how to invoke it (input sources), what comes back (immediate job_id), the costs, the required key, and the full downstream contract (poll get_transcripts_job until 'done', read results from get_transcripts_results). The output schema handles return-value specifics, so nothing essential for correct invocation is 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents every parameter including segment sizing guidance and idempotency_key behavior. The description adds a sourcing hint for videos (feed from list-channel/playlist tools) and the credit-per-video math, but it does not provide per-parameter explanations beyond the schema — a correct middle ground.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Queue transcripts for MANY videos at once (up to 4000) and get a job_id back immediately'. It differentiates this batch tool from its sibling get_transcript and the polling/result tools, so an agent understands exactly what this tool does and what it is not without reading any other definition.

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 explicitly tells when to choose it: 'Use this instead of calling get_transcript in a loop for more than a handful of videos.' It also tells the agent where to get inputs ('Feed it video ids from list_channel_videos or list_playlist_videos') and exactly which sibling to poll next (get_transcripts_job, get_transcripts_results). This is explicit routing, not implied.

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