channel_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what data it returns, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name.

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?

While concise with only two words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It lacks front-loaded information and fails to convey essential details, making it ineffective despite its brevity. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the presence of similar sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, or how it differs from alternatives, failing to provide necessary context for effective agent use.

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%, with clear documentation for all three parameters (id, hl, gl). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Channel Details' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what action it performs or what resource it operates on. It provides no verb or functional context, making it impossible to distinguish from sibling tools like 'channel_details_v2' or understand its purpose.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'channel_details_v2' or other channel-related tools (e.g., 'channel_videos', 'channel_playlists'). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely ambiguous.

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