YouTube channel data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the type of data returned (subscribers, description, videos) but does not mention any limitations, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only. There is no output schema to clarify return structure.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key information: 'Structured YouTube channel data'. It lists a few example fields in parentheses, earning its place without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the basic purpose but leaves ambiguity around what 'videos' means (e.g., a list of video metadata vs. count) and lacks any usage context or limitations. It is adequate for a simple tool but misses opportunities to clarify expected output.

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 input schema has 100% coverage: the single 'url' parameter is described as 'YouTube channel URL'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, merely reiterating that the tool returns channel data. Since the schema already documents the parameter sufficiently, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool name and description clearly identify the resource as YouTube channel data, listing example fields (subscribers, description, videos) that distinguish it from sibling tools like web_data_youtube_posts and web_data_youtube_comments. However, the description lacks an explicit verb like 'Retrieve' or 'Get', making the action slightly implicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where channel profile data is needed or contrast with sibling tools like smart_scrape or web_data_youtube_posts. The differentiation relies solely on the tool name.

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