get_channel_id_by_handle

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 does disclose input flexibility ('May include or omit the '@' symbol') and return structure (data, error, successful). However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it detail failure modes or authentication requirements beyond a generic error field.

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 concise docstring with Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose statement, uses clear structure, and contains no unnecessary verbiage.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description provides essential context: input format and return shape. It could be more explicit about behavior for invalid handles, but the generic error field covers this. Overall, it is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0% – the schema only specifies type 'string'. The description compensates by explaining that the parameter is a YouTube handle, providing an example ('@Google'), and noting the '@' symbol is optional. This adds significant meaning 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 clearly states 'Retrieves the YouTube channel ID for a specific YouTube channel handle' – a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_youtube or list_channel_videos, which serve different purposes.

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 usage is implied: provide a channel handle to get its ID. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., search_youtube) or when not to use it. The Args section explains the input requirement but does not provide decision criteria.

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