get_timed_transcript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool requires authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. Pagination is implied by the 'next_cursor' parameter but not explained. The description only states a basic operation without caveats or behavioral traits.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately communicates the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly restructured to front-load the key operation more explicitly; still, it is concise and effective.

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 has three parameters (including pagination) and an output schema exists, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to use 'next_cursor' for pagination, what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON with text and timestamps), or any limitations (e.g., video length). An output schema exists but its content is not summarized, leaving the agent with gaps in understanding the full context.

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 all three parameters (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any additional semantic value beyond what the schema offers, such as clarifying default language behavior or how pagination works. Therefore, it meets the baseline of 3, as it neither harms nor significantly improves parameter understanding.

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 action ('Retrieves') and the resource ('transcript of a YouTube video with timestamps'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings: 'get_transcript' likely returns a non-timestamped version, 'get_video_info' returns metadata, and 'get_available_languages' returns language options. The addition of 'with timestamps' specifically clarifies the unique value.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain that 'get_timed_transcript' should be used when timestamps are required, while 'get_transcript' might be more appropriate for plain text. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a YouTube API key, or limitations like video availability.

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