Get Channel Information

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. With annotations covering key traits, a baseline 3 is appropriate, but the description misses opportunities to 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded with essential information and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. This exemplifies optimal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. While annotations help, the description doesn't fully compensate for the missing output schema, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'channelId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as format examples (e.g., 'UC...') or sourcing tips. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value from the description.

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' and the resource 'information about a YouTube channel', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'channels_listVideos' by focusing on channel metadata rather than video listings. However, it doesn't specify what information is retrieved (e.g., statistics, description, thumbnails), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 prerequisites (e.g., authentication), differentiate from similar tools like 'videos_getVideo' for video-specific data, or indicate scenarios where channel information is needed over other operations. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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