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

With annotations already covering the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, the description goes well beyond them: webhook URLs are masked to host only because they are credentials, Telegram returns target null plus connected/connectUrl semantics, and email shows connected:false until the recipient confirms. These are exactly the surprising return behaviors an agent needs and would otherwise misinterpret.

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 purpose leads, followed by the three non-obvious return caveats (masked webhook URL, Telegram connected/connectUrl, email pending confirmation). Dense but each sentence carries information that substitutes for the missing output schema; only the run-on structure of the last two clauses costs it.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it covers the tricky parts (masking, connected flags, connectUrl, linked monitor ids) well. It still omits the general per-channel field shape (id/name/type), which a caller assembling a vincular_canal request would want.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing to document and the description correctly spends its words on return semantics instead. No misleading parameter language is introduced.

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+resource ("Lista os canais de alerta da conta") and enumerates the channel types covered (email, Slack, Discord, Google Chat, webhook, Telegram), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like criar_canal/remover_canal, but the verb alone separates it from every mutating sibling.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of linked monitor ids hints this is how you discover channel/monitor relationships before vincular_canal, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or exclusion versus ver_conta or testar_canal. An agent can infer the context but has to do so itself.

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