get_channel_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through 'Get information,' but it does not state authentication needs, rate limits, or side-effect-free guarantees, nor does it describe the meaning of 'recent videos' or response behavior.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler and the core information front-loaded. It is concise and well-structured, though it could be improved by adding usage guidance.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the basic purpose and hints at return contents, but with no output schema it does not fully specify response shape, error cases, or channel resolution behavior. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, with channel_id described as 'Channel ID or URL.' The description adds no additional parameter detail, but the schema already fully documents the single parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource, 'YouTube channel,' while adding concrete detail about the return content ('subscriber count and recent videos'). This clearly distinguishes it from video/playlist/subscription sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly name any alternative.

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 it should be used when channel information is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_subscriptions or search_videos. With eight sibling tools, the agent receives no routing help beyond the basic purpose statement.

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