youtube_get_channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the payload includes both metadata and statistics, but says nothing about the mandatory api_key, rate limits, or failure modes (e.g. unknown handle).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though for a tool with an undocumented required credential parameter the terseness edges into under-specification rather than ideal concision.

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?

The tool is simple, annotations cover safety and there is no output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. Still, it omits the required api_key and any hint about what 'statistics' contains or what happens on an invalid identifier, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent composing the call.

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 coverage is only 33% – api_key and channel_id have no descriptions at all, and the description does not compensate by explaining that api_key is required or that handle and channel_id are alternatives. The one useful hint (handle is an alternative to channel_id) lives in the schema, not the description, so the description adds essentially no parameter meaning.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('metadata and statistics for a YouTube channel'), which is unambiguous and distinct from the video/playlist siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with youtube_search or youtube_get_video, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers you call this when you want channel-level info. There is no statement of when to prefer this over youtube_search, and no guidance on choosing handle vs channel_id despite the schema offering both. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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