web_youtube_transcript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions transcripts with timestamps but omits critical details: what happens if no transcript exists, how it handles autogenerated vs manual captions, rate limits, or authentication. The description is too sparse for a transparent understanding.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is optimally brief for the information conveyed.

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 tool is simple (2 parameters, no output schema), so the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks information about return format beyond timestamps, error handling, or supported languages. For a transcript extraction tool, more context (e.g., fallback behavior) would be appropriate.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, documenting both 'url' and 'languageCode'. The description adds only 'with timestamps' as output context, which does not enhance parameter understanding. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description does not improve parameter semantics.

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 states the verb 'Extract' and the resource 'text transcripts and captions with timestamps from a YouTube video URL'. It uniquely identifies the tool's function, and among sibling tools (e.g., data utilities, web extractors), none overlap in purpose, ensuring distinction.

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 implies the tool is for extracting YouTube transcripts but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., URL validity, caption availability), or exclusion criteria. No sibling tool directly competes, so the lack of alternatives is mitigated, but usage context is minimal.

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