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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context ('translates it to human language', header channel resolution) but the phrase 'ChannelOAuthId resolved internally' is confusing given the schema requires the caller to supply it, and nothing is said about failure modes or rate limits.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded; no filler. The second sentence's jargon ('HGRApi Header channel') is slightly opaque but does not pad the text.

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 values needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. What is missing is differentiation from the near-identical noapi-servers siblings, which matters in a toolset this large.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema (including its provenance from hgr_list_channels). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Reads No-API Server verification/connection state') scoped to a visible store, plus the extra behavior of translating it to human language. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar siblings hgr_get_noapi_servers and hgr_get_dashboard_getnoapiservers, so an agent must guess which of the three to call.

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 ('for a visible store', with channelOAuthId from hgr_list_channels), which gives a reasonable precondition, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over hgr_get_noapi_servers or when not to use it.

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