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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is low. The description still adds a genuinely non-obvious rule: the returned list is exhaustive and absence implies exclusion, which changes how an agent should reason about the result.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The last two sentences restate the same closed-world idea (exclusion semantics plus the action derived from it), so there is slight redundancy, but nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is rightly absent. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description should at least clarify includeRetired and whether the list is paginated; those gaps leave it only minimally adequate.

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 0% and the description adds nothing about the three parameters. 'On one customer plan' loosely implies planId, but catalogId and especially includeRetired (default false) are entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving the agent guessing about retired channels.

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 (read) and resource (channels included on one customer plan), which is enough to distinguish it from the write sibling save_plan_channel and the listing siblings list_reply_windows / list_response_catalogs. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, 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?

The only guidance is a downstream behavioral directive ('a channel that is not listed is not included. Do not offer it'), which tells the agent how to treat results, not when to choose this tool over evaluate_plan_coverage, list_response_catalogs, or search_customer_plans. No prerequisites, no when-not conditions, no alternative named.

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