channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The word 'Авторизованный' adds useful context that this returns the authenticated user's own channel rather than an arbitrary one, but nothing is said about rate limits, caching, or freshness of the metrics.

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?

A single compact clause with the key noun (authorized channel) front-loaded and the returned fields listed after a colon. No wasted words, though the telegraphic fragment style is terse even for a one-line definition.

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 the return payload does not need explaining, and the description arguably duplicates that field list rather than adding behavioral detail. For a simple zero-parameter read this is minimally adequate, but it omits any framing about scope or typical use.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% with an empty properties object, leaving no parameter gap to compensate for.

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 the resource (the authorized channel) and enumerates the data it exposes (id, name, @handle, subscribers, views, video count). However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb such as 'returns'/'fetches', and it does not differentiate itself from siblings like videos or analytics, which also surface channel-related metrics.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as videos, analytics, or analytics_query, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and the field list.

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