Channel Details

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

Annotations only mark openWorldHint and non-idempotent, so the description carries real weight by disclosing paid-credit consumption, the confirm=true gate, cache-vs-live behavior, and that read-like POSTs do not publish. The 'read-like' phrasing sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint=false but clarifies rather than contradicts it. It still doesn't say what happens on missing/invalid identifiers.

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 core capability and field list are front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing sentences about contact-field provenance and emailing support@scrapecreators.com for data removal are legal boilerplate that doesn't help an agent select or invoke the tool.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers credits, confirmation, caching semantics, and input flexibility, and annotations supply the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain around failure behavior and the exact credit cost per call.

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% and the schema already documents the interchangeable channelId/handle/url inputs, the account selector, confirm, and the cache_max_age enum. The description restates the accepted identifier forms and the confirm requirement without adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves comprehensive YouTube channel profile data') and enumerates the retrieved fields, so an agent immediately knows this returns channel-level metadata rather than videos or playlists. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings like youtube_channel_videos or youtube_search, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It states prerequisites ('requires confirm=true', credit consumption, caching) and the accepted input forms, which implies when the call is appropriate. However, it never says when to prefer this over youtube_search or the other youtube_channel_* tools, so routing guidance is left to inference.

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