get_transcript

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

With no annotations, the description does add useful behavioral context: it discloses the local-first fallback to YouTube captions and that refusal should be handled by waiting. It still omits details about permissions, rate limits, or what a transcript response looks like, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 compact sentence with the core resource information front-loaded. The phrasing 'politely' and 'A refusal means wait' is slightly informal but still communicates operational guidance without bloat.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers input format, retrieval fallback, and refusal handling. It is mostly complete, though it could explicitly note that the return value is the transcript text.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the single parameter. It does so meaningfully by stating that the video input can be a video link or an 11-character ID, which adds format guidance beyond the bare schema.

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 identifies the resource as one YouTube video's transcript and specifies accepted input forms (link or 11-character ID). It is distinguishable from siblings like judge_video or check_channels, though it phrases the purpose as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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?

It indicates the source fallback behavior (local cache first, then YouTube captions) and notes that a refusal means to wait. However, it does not state when an agent should call this tool versus alternatives or whether there are prerequisites like authentication.

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