get_channel_info

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 describes what data is returned but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. The description is functional but insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately concise—a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes key data points without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the core functionality from optional features.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves detailed channel information. It lists data points but doesn't describe the return structure, potential pagination for videos, error handling, or API constraints. For a tool with rich data retrieval, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'optionally recent videos' which corresponds to the 'includeVideos' parameter, but provides no additional semantic context about parameter usage or implications.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a YouTube channel' with specific data points (subscriber count, video count, view count) and optional recent videos. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('YouTube channel'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_channel_videos' or 'get_video_details'.

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 'get_channel_videos' (which might retrieve videos without channel metadata) or 'get_video_details' (which focuses on individual videos), leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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