Channel Community Posts

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

Adds real value beyond annotations: it discloses that the call 'Potentially consumes paid API credits' and 'requires confirm=true', and resolves the odd readOnlyHint=false annotation by explaining that read-like POST requests do not publish to social platforms. It doesn't cover rate limits or error behavior, but the credit/auth disclosure is substantive.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the pagination mechanic, then the credit/confirm caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 paginated read tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields, pagination, credit cost, and the confirm requirement. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description clarifies the relationship between parameters (handle/channelId for the first page vs continuationToken for paging) and the confirm gating, adding meaning beyond the field descriptions.

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 (fetches) and resource (community posts from a YouTube channel's Posts tab), and enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like youtube_channel_videos, youtube_channel_shorts, and youtube_community_post_details.

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?

Explicitly describes the request flow: 'Pass a handle or channelId for the first page, then pass continuationToken to page through more posts.' This is clear operational context, though it doesn't name alternatives or when-not-to-use this tool versus youtube_community_post_details.

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