get_channel_statistics

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. It only mentions the return structure, which is redundant given an output schema exists, and does not explicitly state that the operation is safe or requires specific permissions.

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 Args and Returns sections, but the Returns section is redundant given the output schema. It is still reasonably concise and every additional detail (like default 'part' value) adds value, but could be trimmed slightly by omitting the output structure.

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 is simple with 2 parameters and an output schema. The description covers the core functionality and parameter details adequately. However, it omits any context about authentication or rate limits, which might be relevant for a YouTube API, but given the read-only nature, this is a minor gap.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains both parameters. It gives the format for 'id' (comma-separated, starts with 'UC') and detailed guidance for 'part', including default values and usage examples. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 the tool 'gets detailed statistics for YouTube channels including subscriber counts, view counts, and video counts.' This specifies a verb, resource, and outcome, and it is distinguishable from siblings like get_channel_activities.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_channel_activities or get_channel_id_by_handle. The description only states what it does without any contextual usage cues or exclusions.

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