get_youtube_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It mentions the cost of 2 credits, outlines what data is returned (including specific fields), and clarifies that certain fields are platform-specific. It does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or potential errors, but lacks any contradictions.

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 detailed but efficient given the complexity of the return data. It front-loads the main purpose and then lists fields concisely. The list is somewhat long but each item is necessary to convey the scope of the profile data. No unnecessary filler.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description fully explains what data is returned, including nested fields like subscriberGrowth and pricing blocks. It also references related tools for resolving IDs and notes credit cost. For a single-parameter tool, this is complete and self-contained.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameter already has a description explaining the format. The tool description adds substantial context: it specifies the required UC… form, provides an example, and explicitly warns against using @handle, /c/vanity, or /user/legacy URLs, which is valuable beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Get a YouTube creator's profile:' followed by a comprehensive list of returned fields. The verb ('get') and resource ('youtube profile') are clear, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools like get_youtube_audience which focus on different aspects.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool (to retrieve profile data) and instructs to use list_youtube_topics/list_youtube_niches for resolving topic/niche IDs. It also notes that pricing data is YouTube-only, implying not to use it for Instagram/TikTok. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_youtube_sponsorship that may share some fields.

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