get_transcript

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, suggesting side effects (credit consumption), but the description adds explicit cost per video and warns about large payload sizes. It does not contradict annotations, and adds context beyond them, though it could mention that the full transcript is returned in one response or potential truncation. Still, the added cost and size warnings give useful behavioral insight.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by cost and a usage guideline. No unnecessary words or repetition; every sentence earns its place. It achieves high information density in minimal space.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, cost, and when to use an alternative. It does not describe error conditions or return formatting, but with no output schema and clear schema descriptions, this is acceptable. Sibling tool context is referenced. A slightly higher score would require mention of response format or edge cases, but the existing content is sufficient for most scenarios.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters ('lang' and 'videos'), covering their types, defaults, and constraints (max 25 items). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds marginal value—it only restates that one or more videos are accepted and notes 'complete transcript' as output, but does not explain parameter formats beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches complete transcript text for one or more YouTube videos, using the specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'transcript text'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool search_transcript by explicitly mentioning when to prefer that alternative, so the purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 explicit usage guidance: it names the alternative tool (search_transcript) and explains when NOT to use this tool (when only topic-specific parts are needed), including a rationale (full transcripts are large and mostly irrelevant). It also notes the cost (1 credit per video), helping the agent decide based on resource trade-offs.

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