Get transcript

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new operational context: no API key, no connected account, no quota — i.e. zero auth and no rate-limit cost. It also discloses the default return shape and a hard failure mode (caption-disabled videos are unrecoverable), which no annotation conveys.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and scope; each sentence carries distinct information (scope, auth cost, output modes, failure mode) with no filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns — and it does, specifying prose by default versus timestamped lines. Combined with the auth-free framing and the unrecoverable-caption caveat, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 documents video, language, timestamps, and group_seconds, including the '[m:ss] text' format and defaults. The description restates the prose-vs-timestamped choice but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (read the transcript) and immediately bounds the scope with 'ANY public YouTube video, not just your own,' which distinguishes it from account-scoped siblings like get_my_channel or list_my_videos. An agent can identify the target resource without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear routing for the timestamps parameter ('when you need to cite a moment') and a concrete exclusion ('videos with captions disabled have no transcript and nothing can recover one'), which prevents futile retries. It does not name the adjacent transcript siblings (list_transcript_languages, search_transcript), so the sibling-selection guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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