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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: webhook URLs come back masked to host only because they are credentials, and Telegram entries expose target=null plus a connected flag and connectUrl. It does not describe pagination or whether other secrets are masked.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core 'what', followed by the two non-obvious fields (webhook masking, Telegram connected state). No filler and every sentence carries information.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does well on the tricky fields (masked webhook URL, Telegram target/connected/connectUrl). It still omits the remaining shape an agent may need, such as whether a name/id/type field per channel is present and whether the monitor list is ids only.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the 4 baseline applies; the description correctly introduces no parameter discussion and instead spends its space on output semantics.

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 ('Lista os canais de alerta da conta'), enumerates the channel types covered (email, Slack, Discord, Google Chat, webhook, Telegram), and clarifies it also returns linked monitor ids, distinguishing it from listar_monitores and from the write siblings criar_canal/remover_canal.

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 what is returned but never says when to call this tool versus alternatives such as ver_conta, listar_monitores, or testar_canal, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only faintly implied by the connected/connectUrl notes; routing guidance is absent.

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