YouTube Channel API

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description simply restates the action ('Get') without mentioning any constraints, side effects, data scoping, or result behavior. There is no information about pagination, whether the full video list is returned, or whether channel metadata is complete. This provides no transparency beyond what the tool's name already implies.

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 with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is borderline under-specified for a tool with multiple output types, so it earns a 4 rather than 5 for lacking structural breakdown.

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 lack of an output schema and the complexity of returning both 'details' and 'videos', the description should clarify what constitutes 'details' and whether videos are a paginated list or summary. No such detail is provided. The description is adequate only for high-level understanding, but incomplete for practical 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%: all three parameters (channel_id, country, language) have descriptive text. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents parameter semantics thoroughly. The tool description itself does not enhance understanding of the parameters.

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 'Get a YouTube channel's details and videos' uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('YouTube channel') while indicating two types of output (details and videos). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like youtube_search (search across videos), youtube_video (single video metadata), and youtube_comments, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the channel_id requirement), nor does it contrast with youtube_search or youtube_video. Users are left to infer usage from the name, which is insufficient.

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