get_transcript

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

The description discloses truncation and pagination behavior: "Returns at most max_chars; when truncated the last line gives next_start so you can continue from there." It also notes cost behavior ("Paragraph format is the cheapest"). The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already cover safety, so the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond them.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, use cases, and return/truncation behavior. The most important scope is front-loaded and there is no redundant restating of the parameter schema.

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 read-only transcript tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational details: time-range reading, format options, truncation, continuation, and cost. It is slightly less explicit about the exact shape of the transcript lines, but enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 high and each parameter already has a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the practical cost/format tradeoff and the continuation mechanism tied to max_chars and start/end usage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Read part of an already-watched video's transcript with [mm:ss] timestamps." It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools by explicitly linking it to watch_video and by its time-range-focused scope rather than search or frame extraction.

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 conditions: "Use when the watch_video overview was truncated, when the user asks about a specific time range, or to export subtitles (format='srt')." This tells the agent exactly which scenario selects this tool versus alternatives.

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