get_clean_transcript

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the cleaning behavior and the data source (SponsorBlock), but it does not mention limitations such as reliance on community-submitted segments, possible unavailability of cleaned segments, or behavior when captions are missing. This is adequate but not rich.

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 with no filler: the first states the core functionality and transformation, the second gives the intended use case. All content is relevant and front-loaded.

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 description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly: it names the target resource and the optional language is fully documented in the schema. The main gap is not explicitly contrasting with get_transcript or describing return behavior, but this is a fairly simple tool with no output schema, so the level of completeness is above minimum.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the url or lang parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('YouTube video transcript'), and enumerates exactly what is removed (sponsor reads, intros, outros, self-promotion, filler). This differentiates it from siblings like get_transcript or search_transcript, even though no sibling is named.

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 phrase 'Ideal for summarization' gives clear intended use context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of the likely raw-transcript sibling get_transcript, nor does it mention situations where this tool would be inappropriate, such as when SponsorBlock data is unavailable.

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