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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value the annotations cannot: the exact scopes required (agents:read, sms:read, webhooks:read) and the caution that returned configuration does not prove delivery or recipient consent. It stops short of describing response shape or pagination, so it doesn't exceed a solid 4; the scope and consent caveat justify the upper end.

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, front-loaded with the discovery scope, then permissions, then the caveat. No filler. The middle clause is a dense list, but every item is substantive information about the payload.

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 read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description conveys what fields conceptually come back and what permissions are needed. The remaining hole is the single optional business_id parameter, whose defaulting behavior is undocumented anywhere, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 schema has one parameter, business_id, with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it. With zero required parameters, an agent cannot tell from the text whether business_id is optional-with-default or required-in-practice, nor what happens when it is omitted. This is the clearest gap in the definition.

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 opens with a specific verb ("Discover") and enumerates the resources returned: external agent connection, signed webhook configuration, API operation catalog, channel readiness, runtime requirements. An agent knows what it will get back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_channel_status or get_activation_status, which appear to overlap.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites beyond the permission list, and no exclusions. The line "Configuration does not prove delivery or recipient consent" is an interpretation caveat, not usage guidance, so the agent is left to infer the call site.

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