get_channel_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool retrieves read-only channel information, that multiple identifier types are accepted, and that setting raw to True returns the unaltered YouTube Data API response. This is good transparency for a simple retrieval tool, though rate limits and auth requirements are not mentioned.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and organized as a short summary followed by a straightforward Args list. Every sentence adds information not already in the schema, and the structure lets an agent quickly parse both what the tool does and how to call it.

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 tool’s simplicity, the description is complete for the main invocation path: it explains the identifiers, the raw flag, and the core return data. It could have added what happens when multiple identifiers are supplied or an explicit read-only/no-side-effects statement, but with an output schema present and a clear parameter breakdown, nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: every parameter is explained with concrete examples (UC... for channel_id, '@mkbhd' or 'veritasium' for handle, 'legacy username' for for_username, and the raw behavior). It also adds the critical constraint that at least one identifier is required, which the schema does not express.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and names the exact resource ('channel information') plus the specific data points returned: subscriber counts, total views, and uploads playlist ID. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_video_details or search_channels because the target resource and output are unambiguous.

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 clearly states a precondition: provide at least one of channel_id, for_handle, or for_username. This is practical, direct usage guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or when not to use this tool, but for a straightforward channel-lookup tool the context is clear enough.

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