get_channel_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get detailed information') without explaining what 'detailed information' includes, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or the response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first in a clear sentence. The 'Args' section is concise but could be integrated more smoothly. There's no wasted text, though it lacks structural polish for optimal readability.

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 complexity (a read operation with no annotations, 1 parameter, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails, how to handle errors, or the return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It specifies that 'channel_id' is a 'YouTube channel ID,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose but doesn't provide format examples or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description only partially compensates by naming the parameter type without further detail.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a YouTube channel.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('YouTube channel'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_video_info' or 'get_videos,' which also retrieve YouTube data but focus on videos rather than channels.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools such as 'get_video_info' (for video details) or 'get_videos' (for listing videos), leaving the agent to infer usage based on the resource type (channel vs. video). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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