get_video_transcript

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: returns timestamped text lines, supports slicing via start/end, reads public caption tracks, and costs no API quota. It adds value beyond the schema by explaining the quote-and-cite workflow and the cost implication, though it omits edge cases like missing captions or language fallback.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage tips and cost note. Every sentence adds functional or practical value without redundancy or filler.

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 no annotations but an output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context adequately. It omits failure modes or return structure, but the output schema presumably handles the latter. For a read-only tool with this complexity, the description is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions start_seconds and end_seconds for narrowing videos and hints at timestamp usage, but does not add meaning for languages or chunk_seconds beyond what the schema already provides. It adds moderate value but doesn't fully compensate with extra parameter context.

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 it gets a video's transcript formatted as '[MM:SS] text' lines for quoting and citing. It distinguishes from sibling tools (find_channel, search_channel_videos, etc.) by focusing on transcript retrieval, a distinct resource and action.

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 clear usage context: quote timestamps back for traceability, use start_seconds/end_seconds to narrow long videos, and note that it reads public caption tracks so no API quota is consumed. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, but the guidance is specific and practical.

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