get_youtube_transcript

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 describes the core functionality (extracting transcripts) and input flexibility (various URL formats/video IDs), but doesn't mention potential limitations like availability of transcripts, error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. It adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second clarifies input flexibility. It's front-loaded with the main functionality and wastes no words on unnecessary details.

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 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context but could do more. It explains what the tool does and input formats, but doesn't address output format, error conditions, or limitations. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, this leaves some gaps in understanding the complete behavior.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters (url and languages). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions URL formats/video IDs and transcript extraction, but doesn't provide syntax examples, format details, or language handling beyond the schema's default explanation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Extract the full transcript') and resource ('from a YouTube video'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_youtube_insights and get_youtube_metadata. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implicitly suggests usage for transcript extraction from YouTube videos, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_youtube_insights or get_youtube_metadata. It provides clear context about supported inputs (URL formats or video IDs) but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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