Resolve YouTube channel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the field list scopes the response, but authentication needs, failure behavior, rate limits, or whether partial data can be returned are not disclosed.

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 two sentences: it front-loads the purpose and output fields, then specifies accepted input formats. Every sentence adds value with no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup, the description and schema together cover the input and the expected output fields, even without an output schema. Minor additions like not-found behavior or exact return format could improve completeness, but they are not critical at this complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'channel' parameter. The description largely restates the accepted input formats rather than adding new semantic details beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('YouTube channel overview'), and enumerates the returned fields (title, handle, subscribers, total views, video count). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_channel_videos or search_channels.

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?

Clear context is given: use this when you already have a channel identifier and need an overview. The accepted input forms (@handle, UC... channel id, or channel URL) are explicit, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with search_channels or other alternatives.

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