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 burden. It doesn't disclose return format, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description does usefully explain the exclusive nature of the three parameter forms (suggesting they're alternatives), which adds behavioral insight, but it omits notable details like required auth for the 'mine' case.

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 concise and well-structured, using a docstring-style format with an Args section that front-loads the purpose then enumerates parameters clearly. Each sentence earns its place, though some redundancy exists since the Args section partially repeats what the schema's parameter names already convey.

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 there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a simple lookup tool. It explains all three invocation modes and their parameter formats. However, an agent might want to know whether the return data includes subscriber counts, description, etc., and whether specifying multiple identifier forms simultaneously causes an error - neither is addressed.

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 fully explain parameters. It does so effectively: each parameter (channel_id, handle, mine) gets a concrete description with examples and its purpose. It clarifies that mine='True' maps to the authenticated user's channel, and gives realistic format examples (UCxxxxxxx, @mkbhd) that the schema itself lacks.

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 retrieves channel details and explicitly enumerates all three supported lookup methods: channel ID, handle (@username), and the authenticated user's channel. This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it well from sibling tools like youtube_get_video or youtube_list_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 description implies usage context by showing the three mutually exclusive lookup options (channel_id, handle, mine), which tells the agent how to invoke it. However, it doesn't explicitly explain when to choose one identifier form over another, nor does it contrast with alternatives like youtube_search when only partial channel info is known.

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