Get the connected YouTube channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with this by using 'Read'. Beyond that, the description adds the prerequisite that a connected channel is needed and specifies the exact data fields returned. This provides useful context without contradicting annotations.

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 front-loads the primary action and resource. Every clause earns its place, covering the action, data returned, purpose, and prerequisite without waste.

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 the low complexity (no parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description is adequate. It states the prerequisite and the data returned. A minor gap is not mentioning what happens if no channel is connected, but the prerequisite statement covers the main condition.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics. It correctly focuses on the operation and outcome.

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 'Read' and the resource 'the brand's connected YouTube channel', and specifies the data returned (title, counts). It is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like youtube_channel_report or youtube_bulk_report, so it misses the highest bar for differentiation.

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 for reporting ('for reporting') and states a prerequisite ('Needs a connected YouTube channel'). However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like youtube_channel_report or youtube_bulk_report, offering no exclusion or alternative guidance.

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