youtube_channel_get

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds only the word 'Resolve' as a behavioral hint, but does not explain what input forms are accepted or what 'resolve' entails. No contradiction exists, but the description contributes little beyond the annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the operation and resource. It contains no filler, but it is so terse that it omits important usage and parameter context, making it concise at the expense of completeness.

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 tool has two parameters, one required, and the description does not sufficiently explain either. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, but the lack of parameter semantics is a notable gap. Given the absence of an output schema and a low-complexity tool, the description should have at least clarified what 'Resolve' means and how to specify the channel.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain what the 'channel' parameter accepts (ID, handle, URL, etc.) or what the 'select' parameter controls. With zero coverage and no compensating description, this is a major gap for an agent trying to call the tool correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolve and get') and resource ('one YouTube channel profile'), clearly indicating this tool fetches a single channel. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by resource type (channel vs video/playlist/search). The term 'Resolve' is slightly ambiguous but generally signals that the channel can be identified in multiple forms.

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 conveys that this tool is for retrieving one YouTube channel, which is a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly address when to use this instead of youtube_search, youtube_video_get, or youtube_playlist_get, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites for resolving a channel.

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