get_subscriber_count

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 add one genuinely useful behavioral detail — that omitting channel_id falls back to the authenticated channel — but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the count is exact vs approximate. Read-only is implied by 'get' but not declared.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the purpose, and the args block is minimal. The argparse-style 'Args:' preamble is slightly verbose for a single optional parameter but wastes little space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and this is a simple single-parameter read tool. The essentials — purpose, the one parameter's semantics, and default behavior — are covered; only auth/permission context is absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines channel_id's meaning and its default/fallback behavior, which the schema alone does not convey. It does not specify the expected id format (numeric id, handle, or URL), leaving a small gap.

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 the subscriber count of a channel'), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_channel_info or get_analytics. It stops short of explicitly naming how it differs from those tools, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 on when to use this tool versus get_channel_info or get_analytics. The only conditional context given is the channel_id default, which is about invocation mechanics rather than tool selection.

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