youtube_get_channel_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the auth requirement (YOUTUBE_API_KEY) but does not disclose rate limits, failure modes, or response structure, which would enhance transparency.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key deliverable (channel metadata) and the auth requirement. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary fluff.

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 get-by-ID tool with comprehensive annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the metadata returned and the API key prerequisite. It omits potential error behavior but this is not critical for such a straightforward read operation.

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 100% for the single parameter channel_id, which includes a description of the expected format. The description adds no further parameter-level information, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves detailed channel metadata, listing specific data types (subscribers, views, videos, country, keywords). This distinguishes it from siblings like youtube_get_video_info and youtube_get_channel_videos.

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 implies usage for obtaining detailed metadata for a known channel ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like youtube_search_channels. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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