Youtube Get Channel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses cost ('one unit from the shared pool'), the error shape for missing handles (error vs. empty result), the hidden_subscriber_count edge case that makes subscriber_count meaningless, and the rounding of subscriber counts. These are all non-obvious behaviors an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and the core constraint, then useful details. Every sentence earns its place, though it runs long and could be tightened. The parenthetical statistics list is efficient.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is not required, yet the description still calls out key return fields and edge cases (hidden subscriber counts, meaningfulness of subscriber_count). Combined with the identifier contract and cost disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it does: 'handle' accepts '@name' or 'name', and the exactly-one-of-two constraint is stated. This fills the schema gap fully for both parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a YouTube channel') and immediately constrains the two input modes (by ID or by handle). It also disambiguates against the sibling youtube_list_channel_videos by naming it and clarifying that uploads_playlist_id is the input that sibling resolves. An agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 explicitly requires 'pass exactly one of the two' identifier modes, which is concrete selection guidance. It stops short of stating when to prefer this tool over youtube_search_videos for channel discovery, so it's clear on the input contract but not on the wider when/when-not decision.

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