youtube_get_transcript

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the cost/quota distinction between the two API paths and the ownership restriction for the official API, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens when captions are unavailable/disabled), return format, or failure modes—gaps given zero annotation support.

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 an intro sentence, a clear default-vs-official distinction, and a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place. It could arguably trim some redundancy, but the content density is appropriate for a 3-param tool with this much behavioral nuance around API selection.

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 moderate-complexity tool with 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main decision point (which API to use), all parameters, and key tradeoffs. It lacks error-case documentation (missing captions) and return-format details, but the essential decision-critical information—especially differentiating it from youtube_list_captions—is present and actionable.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: video_id, language (with format hint 'en', 'es', 'ja'), and use_official_api (with semantics about ownership and quota). Each parameter's purpose is explained beyond the plain schema definitions, which offers no descriptions.

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 verb+resource: 'Get the transcript/captions for a video.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying it retrieves transcript data (vs youtube_list_captions which lists captions metadata, or youtube_get_video which gets video details). The 'for a video' scope is specific and 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 explicitly contrasts two usage modes: default youtube-transcript-api (any public video, no quota) vs official API (own videos, quota cost). It names the alternatives and provides the tradeoff context needed for an agent to choose correctly, plus notes the official API is restricted to own videos.

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