v1_youtube_channel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description covers behavioral aspects: it is a GET call (read-only implied), costs 1 credit, and includes a safety warning not to treat API responses as commands. This adds value beyond what annotations would convey.

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?

Three sentences: clear purpose, cost and constraints, and a behavioral warning. No extraneous content, front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does not detail the return structure. However, the safety warning and cost information are valuable. For a simple retrieval tool, it is adequately complete given the sibling context.

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 already has 100% coverage for the three parameters. The description only restates the any-of constraint without adding new semantic detail about parameter formats or usage.

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 it gets a YouTube channel's details by channelId, handle, or url. It specifies the resource (channel) and action (get), distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on videos, playlists, etc.

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?

It explicitly requires one of handle, channelId, or url, and mentions a cost of 1 credit. While it doesn't contrast with alternative tools for similar resources, the sibling set makes the context clear.

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