Get a channel's baseline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the metric (median views of recent settled uploads), the additional outputs (subscriber count, upload cadence), and even the quota cost. It doesn't cover errors or permission requirements, but provides meaningful transparency beyond the title.

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 two concise sentences, with the first front-loading the core purpose and the second giving a clear usage scenario. The cost note is a single add-on. Every piece of information earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage trigger, metric definition, and cost. It doesn't detail exact response structure or edge cases, but it's sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 parameter schema already provides 100% coverage, describing the accepted formats (URL, @handle, channel id, or any video URL). The tool description adds no parameter-specific details, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states what the tool does: it reports a channel's baseline performance as median views of recent settled uploads, along with subscriber count and upload cadence. It also positions this as a reference point for judging video performance, distinguishing it from the sibling tools like find_outliers and compare_channels.

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 explicitly says to call this tool when the user asks whether a view count is good for a channel or needs a reference point before judging a video. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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