Get several transcripts

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: videos without captions are reported in place rather than failing the whole batch. This is valuable operational context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core function and batch limit are front-loaded, followed by the most important edge-case behavior and a brief usage note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main operational concern (missing captions) and the tool's purpose, and the schema handles most parameters. It does not explain the return format or language behavior, which would matter more since there is no output schema, but the core usage is still clear.

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 67%, with descriptions for videos and max_chars_each but not for language. The description restates the batch limit but does not clarify the language parameter or add meaning beyond the schema. It does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 action ('Fetch transcripts') and the resource scope ('up to 20 videos in one call'). It distinguishes itself from the singular get_transcript sibling by emphasizing batch retrieval, so an agent knows exactly when this tool applies.

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 concrete use cases: compare openings across videos or build a corpus for analysis. It implies batch use and contrasts with a single-transcript tool, though it does not explicitly name get_transcript or state when not to use this tool.

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