get_channel_metadata

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

No annotations exist, so description carries the burden. It implies read-only operation ('fetch') and specifies the channel_id constraint. However, it omits error handling, rate limits, and authentication requirements. Behavior is partially disclosed but lacks depth.

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?

Two short paragraphs: first gives core purpose and usage, second details args/returns. Every sentence is necessary, no fluff. Front-loaded with the key action.

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 single-parameter read tool, it covers purpose, usage context, parameter constraint, and return fields. Lacks error/edge-case details, but given low complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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% (no parameter descriptions), so the description's 'channel_id: YouTube channel ID (must start with UC)' adds needed format constraint. But the parameter is simple and essentially named; the addition is helpful but not extensive.

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 states 'fetch full metadata for a known channel_id' with clear verb and resource. It distinctly positions itself as an enrichment step after search_youtube_channels, differentiating from siblings that search or analyze 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?

It provides explicit usage context: 'Use after search_youtube_channels to enrich a candidate... before presenting to the user.' This guides when to invoke, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives beyond the sibling hint.

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