Get channel details

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the quota cost ('1 quota unit') and accepted identifier formats, which are useful operational details even if the return shape is not described.

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 single, information-dense sentence: purpose first, accepted identifier forms second, and quota cost last. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup, the description covers the purpose, identifier format, and cost, which is enough for an agent to select and call the tool. It does not enumerate the returned stats, but the tool has no output schema and the narrow resource makes that a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.

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 for the single 'channel' parameter is 0%, so the description carries the semantic burden. It does so by explaining that the parameter accepts a UC-prefixed channel ID or an @handle, giving the agent concrete guidance beyond the bare string type. It could add more detail, like examples, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 identifies a specific resource ('channel info and stats') and the identifier forms used to locate it (channel ID or @handle). This clearly separates it from sibling tools that operate on videos, playlists, comments, or transcripts, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 states the clear selection condition: use this when you need channel-level information or statistics for a channel identified by a UC... ID or @handle. It does not name sibling alternatives or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, so it stops short of fully explicit routing.

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