benchmark_channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the authenticated channel and details the return output, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any limitations, data freshness, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core action, the second lists output components, and the third explains the comparative insight. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers input constraints and output content. It names the metrics and the comparison outcome. It could mention edge behaviors like invalid IDs or data availability, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 fully documents the single parameter (competitorChannelIds) with description, format, and min/max. The tool description reinforces the 1-3 channel constraint but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Compara seu canal autenticado') with a defined resource (own channel vs. competitors) and scope (1 to 3 channels). It also lists the returned metrics, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual channel analytics or competitor videos.

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 usage context is implied ('compares your channel with competitors') but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_channel_analytics or get_competitor_videos. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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