search_channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool searches channels and enriches results with subscriber, view, and video counts, but it does not mention limitations, rate limits, data freshness, or any caveats about search result behavior. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 tight and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement, a brief use-case line, and a compact Args block. Every sentence adds information, and the most important scoping detail ('specifically for channels') is front-loaded.

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 description fully documents all parameters and provides clear invocation context, which is sufficient given the presence of an output schema. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly naming sibling tools like scout_niche_channels or search_videos to prevent misuse, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 type, range, defaults, and examples. The query example ('ai automation', 'budget travel') and region_code format ('US', 'GB', 'CA') add real semantic value beyond the bare 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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Search YouTube specifically for channels,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_videos. It also states enriched outputs (subscribers, views, video counts) and lists concrete use cases, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Ideal for creator discovery, niche research, and competitor mapping.' It implies differentiation from video-focused search tools by saying 'specifically for channels,' though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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