get_channel_info

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden. It implies a read via 'Get', but says nothing about permission requirements, whether the authenticated channel must exist, error behavior for invalid ids, or rate limits. The output schema covers the return shape, so that gap is partially mitigated.

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?

Two tight elements: a front-loaded purpose sentence with the returned fields, followed by parameter clarification. No padding or redundancy, though the 'Args:' block style is slightly boilerplate for a single optional parameter.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and the parameter default adequately. It is nonetheless missing usage context and any behavioral caveats, leaving it merely viable rather than complete.

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% — 'Channel Id' is the only schema text — so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines channel_id and explains the important default that omitting it falls back to the authenticated channel. It does not specify accepted id formats (handle vs numeric), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get information about a channel') and even enumerates the returned fields (title, description, banner). It is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like update_channel_branding, though it never explicitly contrasts with other channel reads such as get_subscriber_count.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives; the agent must infer that this is the general channel-read tool. The only contextual aid is the note about omitting channel_id, which is parameter behavior rather than usage guidance.

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