get_jw_captions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavior: auto-extraction of video ID from a URL. However, it doesn't mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid inputs, or any rate limits/auth requirements. The word 'fetches' implies a read operation, but this is implicit rather than explicit.

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, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the primary function and input options, while the second provides illustrative examples. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it an exemplar of efficient description.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, accepted inputs, and extraction behavior. It doesn't detail the exact return format (e.g., plain text vs. structured captions), but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and clear primary function.

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 schema description for the single parameter already covers the core semantics (video ID or URL, auto-extraction). The tool description adds valuable concrete examples (e.g., 'pub-jwbvod25_17_VIDEO' and a full URL) that go beyond the schema, helping the agent understand the accepted formats. This exceeds the baseline of 3 set by high schema coverage.

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 tool 'Fetches video captions from JW.org' with a specific verb and resource. It further specifies the input types (video ID or URL) and includes concrete examples, which fully distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle workbook, watchtower, or Bible content.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: fetching captions for videos on JW.org. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the siblings are all for distinct content types (links, content, Bible verses, lessons), making the intended use unmistakable. A slight deduction for not stating 'when not to use' or explicitly naming alternatives.

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