Channel Videos

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds valuable context beyond them: credit consumption, the confirm=true requirement, and the clarification that 'read-like POST requests do not publish to social platforms,' which explains why a read operation is flagged non-readOnly. No return-format detail beyond the named fields, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the operational caveats. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padding, though the credit/confirm caveat is essential rather than optional.

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 usefully enumerates the return shape (channel metadata, videos, shorts, numeric cursor) and covers the credit/confirm gating. All five parameters are schema-documented, so the definition is nearly complete for a paged list tool; only explicit sibling routing is absent.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the handle/URL alternative and cursor-for-next-page meaning without adding syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Gets videos from a Rumble channel') plus the input modes (handle or URL) and what is returned (metadata, videos, shorts). An agent can distinguish it from rumble_video and rumble_search by scope, but the description never names those siblings to make the boundary explicit.

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?

Adds the critical operating conditions 'Potentially consumes paid API credits; requires confirm=true,' which tells the agent how to call it safely. However, it gives no when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance (e.g., when to prefer rumble_video or rumble_search), so guidance is implied rather than routed.

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