Get video transcript

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals the resilience strategy ('tries InnerTube, then the timedtext caption track, then local yt-dlp') and the chunking behavior ('check totalChars and call again with offsetChars'). It does not cover failure modes or exact output structure, but the most important behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: core purpose, resilience strategy, and pagination behavior. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description sufficiently outlines the chunking contract and fallback approach, allowing an agent to invoke the tool and continue pagination. It falls short of fully describing the return payload shape and does not reference sibling 'get_transcripts', but overall the essential calling context is present.

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 100%, so every parameter already has a description. The tool description adds a little value by connecting offsetChars to the chunking workflow and introducing totalChars as a response field, but it does not substantially enrich parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with 'Fetch a video's transcript as clean plain text', giving a specific verb, resource, and output format. It clearly identifies the tool's core function, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'get_transcripts', leaving some ambiguity about whether that sibling should be used for different transcript-related needs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description explains the fallback chain for fetching but does not mention sibling tools like 'get_transcripts' or state conditions under which this tool is preferred. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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