enhanced-transcript

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions multi-video capabilities (up to 5 videos), filtering options, and output formats, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens with invalid inputs, leaving gaps for a tool with complex parameters.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement followed by a numbered list of features and detailed parameter explanations. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool, though the parameter section is lengthy; every sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with key capabilities.

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 complexity (5 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks output details, error handling, or performance constraints. For a tool with such rich input options, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It explicitly lists all 5 parameters with clear explanations: 'videoIds (required) - Array of YouTube video IDs (up to 5)', 'language (optional) - Language code', etc., and details nested filter options like timeRange, search, and segment. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose as 'Advanced transcript extraction tool with filtering, search, and multi-video capabilities' and lists six specific features, making it highly specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get-video-transcript' by emphasizing advanced capabilities like multi-video processing, filtering, and search.

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. While it mentions advanced features, it doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over simpler siblings like 'get-video-transcript' or 'get-segmented-transcript', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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