channel_featured_channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses quota cost (1 unit) and hints at additional costs for some parameters, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover other critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'featured' means operationally. The description adds some transparency but leaves gaps for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 extremely concise—just two sentences that directly state the purpose and quota cost. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and quota costs but lacks details on output format, error cases, or usage context. For a tool that likely returns structured data (featured channels), more guidance on what to expect would be helpful, though the high schema coverage mitigates some gaps.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'id' and 'forUsername' interact or what 'featured channel listing' entails). Baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra semantic context.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get featured channel listing and channel details.' It specifies both the action (get) and the resources (featured channel listing, channel details). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'about_channel' or 'channel_home', which might also provide channel information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 mentions quota cost, but doesn't specify scenarios like 'use this for discovering popular channels' or contrast it with siblings such as 'channel_videos' or 'search_channels_videosplaylists'. Without such context, the agent lacks direction on appropriate usage.

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