get_channel_activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output format ('Object with data, error, successful boolean'), pagination behavior, and filter options. It does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits, but the 'get' verb implies a read-only operation.

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 well-structured with a concise one-sentence summary, a clear Args list covering all six parameters, and a Returns section. It is appropriately sized for a tool with six parameters, with no unnecessary verbosity.

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 (six parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it explains all parameters, their constraints, and the return shape. It fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has zero field descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does so comprehensively: channel_id format (starts with 'UC'), max_results range (0-50), page_token purpose, part examples ('snippet', 'contentDetails', 'id'), and date formats (RFC 3339). This far exceeds the schema's bare titles and types.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Gets recent activities from a YouTube channel including video uploads, playlist additions, likes, and other channel events.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_channel_videos (videos only) and get_channel_statistics (statistics).

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 context for when to use the tool (when recent channel activities are needed) and gives examples of activity types. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions but is not misleading.

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