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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it returns only content already published to a channel, so drafts are invisible, and it is channel-scoped. It does not discuss pagination ceilings or result sizes, but those are partly covered in the schema and output schema.

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 verb and resource, then the operation inventory, then the routing/exclusion sentence. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (published-only, use cms_content for authoring) lands before the reader stops.

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 an output schema present, return-value documentation is unnecessary; annotations cover safety; and the schema covers all 9 params at full coverage. The description supplies the remaining pieces an agent needs — scope, published-only constraint, sibling disambiguation, and entry point via list_channels.

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%, including the search POST-only/queryTerm requirement, the list_contents query params, and the warning that delivery channel IDs differ from authoring channel IDs, so the baseline is 3. The DESCRIPTION text itself adds nothing about parameters, so no credit above baseline.

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 ('Read published Salesforce CMS content through delivery channels') and then enumerates the concrete operations: list channels, list/get/search content, get collection items. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling cms_content, so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (cms_content) and the exact conditions that select it: authoring, publishing, and inspecting unpublished drafts. It also gives a starting point ('Start with list_channels' is echoed in the operation param) and makes the published-only restriction explicit, which is precisely the routing information an agent needs.

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