Channel profile and stats

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish that this is a safe read against remote data, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by enumerating what data surfaces (keywords, country, default language, trailer, banner, settings), effectively a partial return spec. It says nothing about quota cost, auth requirements, or whether any of these fields can be null/absent, which matters given sibling tools like quota_status and auth_status.

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?

It is a single short fragment with zero wasted words, which is good. But it is a caption, not a description: there is no leading verb or purpose statement, so the structure does not front-load what the tool does the way an agent scanning tool lists would benefit from.

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 1-parameter read tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields is the most valuable thing the description can do, and it does that reasonably thoroughly. What is missing is usage routing versus sibling channel tools, not return-value coverage.

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%, so the channel parameter's accepted forms (channel ID, @handle, name, omitted for default) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline given complete schema documentation.

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 text is a bare enumeration of channel attributes (title, handle, keywords, counts, banner, settings) with no verb, so the agent must infer that the tool *retrieves* this data. The attribute list does loosely distinguish it from get_video and get_analytics, but the purpose is implied by field names rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like list_channels, update_channel, get_analytics and set_channel_banner present, the description gives the agent nothing to choose between them.

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