Summarize YouTube Transcript

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, yet the description still adds genuinely useful behavioral facts: no audio transcription, no LLM on the server, no API key required, public captions only, and that the client bears the summarization burden. What it omits is failure behavior — what happens when no caption track exists in the requested language, and whether there is a language fallback.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does before what it does not do. Every clause earns its place by preempting a likely misread of the tool's name.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say more about what is actually returned — raw timedtext, segmented captions, or plain text — since the calling AI must summarize it and the name suggests a summary comes back. It covers the key conceptual confusion but leaves the return shape and caption-availability edge cases unspecified.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents videoIdOrUrl, lang (with BCP-47 examples), and style. The description adds only indirect meaning by clarifying that style is guidance for the calling AI rather than server-side formatting. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: 'Fetches a publicly available YouTube caption track and returns it to the calling AI.' It even corrects the misimpression created by the name/title by stating the server does not summarize. However, it never distinguishes this tool from its siblings get_youtube_transcript or list_youtube_transcript_languages, which appear to overlap heavily.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance relative to the two sibling tools. The 'style' parameter implies this variant carries formatting instructions for the caller's summary, but the description never says that or explains when an agent should pick this over plain get_youtube_transcript. The only implied usage is 'when you need captions to summarize'.

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