get_transcript

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

Given readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already cover safety, the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns verbatim text, supports range narrowing via start/end, and requires transcript indexing. It does not discuss failure behavior if the transcript is unavailable, but it exceeds the minimum bar.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and a prerequisite, making it easy to scan and act on.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the main purpose and key prerequisite are covered. However, with 7 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the missing semantics for format, max_chars, max_results, and rationale leave noticeable gaps that an agent would need to resolve elsewhere.

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 parameters. It only explains start/end as narrowing options. format, max_chars, max_results, rationale, and video_id receive no semantic explanation, leaving the agent to guess at their meaning and interaction.

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 spoken words in a video.' It further disambiguates from ask_video by explicitly stating that it returns actual text rather than a summary, which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit usage direction: use this instead of ask_video when you need to read what was said, use start/end to narrow results for long videos, and only use it when the transcript feature has been indexed. These are clear when-to-use and prerequisite signals.

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