youtube_channel_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates the tool returns data (read-only implied) but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the action and input, one for the return fields. No redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simple single-parameter input and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. However, it omits details about invalid inputs or edge cases, which could be added without much overhead.

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?

The input schema has a single parameter with no description. The description adds semantics by stating the parameter accepts a URL, handle, or ID, which clarifies valid inputs beyond the schema's type field. With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates effectively.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves channel metadata and specifies the allowable input types (URL, handle, or ID). It lists the exact return fields, making the purpose unambiguous. The sibling tools handle videos, comments, playlists, etc., so this tool is well-differentiated.

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 usage when channel metadata is needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The sibling tool list provides context, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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