get_channel_info

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

No annotations provided, but the description transparently lists the exact data fields returned and indicates it is a read operation. No side effects or limitations are mentioned, though such details are minimal for a simple info retrieval.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence defines purpose and output, the second clarifies input. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains input and output. It could mention potential limitations (e.g., private channels) but is adequate for typical use.

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% and the description reinforces the acceptable formats (channel URL, @handle, or channel ID), adding clarity beyond the schema's generic description.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('YouTube channel information'), and lists specific fields (title, description, counts, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_video_metadata or get_channel_videos.

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 explains acceptable input formats (URL, @handle, channel ID) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Context from sibling names suffices to infer usage, but direct guidance is lacking.

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