channels_getChannel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't specify what information is returned (e.g., metadata, statistics, content details), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality without any 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'information' is returned (e.g., channel name, subscriber count, video list), leaving the agent to guess the output structure. Given the lack of structured data, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and results.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'channelId' clearly documented as 'The YouTube channel ID'. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameter (e.g., format examples, where to find channel IDs, or validation rules), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 verb ('Get information') and resource ('about a YouTube channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools that might also retrieve channel information, such as if there were a 'channels_getChannelDetails' or 'channels_getChannelStatistics' tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'channels_listVideos' (which might list videos from a channel) or 'videos_searchVideos' (which might search across channels), leaving the agent to infer usage context from tool names alone.

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