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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It still adds real value: channel auth is resolved from the HGRApi header internally (no extra credential plumbing), and secret fields are redacted before return, which tells the agent to expect masked values rather than data loss.

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 what it does, followed by auth handling and redaction behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, nothing material is missing: the agent knows scope, auth handling, and that secrets come back masked. Return-value details are correctly left to the output schema.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in-schema, including the hgr_list_channels sourcing, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that.

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 ("Reads auto-ordering configuration") plus scope (one visible store/channel) and origin (WAPI). The read framing clearly separates it from the sibling write operations hgr_save_autoordering_configuration and hgr_remove_autoordering_configuration.

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?

"for one visible store/channel" implies this is a per-channel lookup, and the schema points to hgr_list_channels as the source of the ID, but the description itself never states when to use this versus the save/remove siblings or any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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