youtube_get_transcript

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the underlying library, quota implications, and ownership restriction for the official API. It does not describe the return format or error behavior, which would be helpful for a tool with no output schema.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is clearly structured. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence adds meaningful information about usage and parameters.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: purpose, API choice, parameter meanings, and usage constraints. It lacks detail on return value structure and failure modes, but the core decision-making information 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 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args block explains each parameter: video_id as the video ID, language with examples, and use_official_api with its behavioral impact. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles and types.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the transcript/captions for a video.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like youtube_list_captions by focusing on transcript retrieval rather than caption track listing. The mention of default vs official API adds further context about scope.

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 clearly explains when to use the default method (any public video, no quota cost) versus the official API (own videos, costs quota). It provides practical usage context, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like youtube_get_video or youtube_list_captions.

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