youtube_channel_videos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses no API key is required, that billing goes to the caller's own Apify account at ~$0.001 per result (lower on paid plans), and the hard 15-video ceiling imposed by YouTube's RSS feed. It stops short of covering auth setup or failure/empty-channel 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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action, input forms, output fields, and pricing without filler. Every clause (input formats, returned fields, cost) carries information the agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the returned fields, and it also covers cost and the 15-video limit. Minor gaps remain around error handling and whether results are sorted by recency, but the core call path is fully specified.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including accepted channel ID/handle/URL forms and the 15-item maximum. The description adds little beyond that apart from 'one row per video' and the per-result cost, 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?

Names a specific verb+resource (scrape latest YouTube channel uploads) and enumerates the returned fields (title, URL, views, likes, description, thumbnail), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling youtube_channel_scraper, leaving ambiguity about which channel tool to pick.

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 implied by the phrasing 'give it a channel ID, @handle or channel URL', which tells the agent what to feed it. There is no explicit when-to-use versus youtube_channel_scraper or youtube_search_scraper, and no stated exclusions, so routing must be inferred.

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