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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds value by disclosing that the HGRApi header channel / ChannelOAuthId is resolved internally and that the returned settings must not be conflated with supplier state. The main remaining gap is any note on what happens when no settings were ever saved for the store.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. But the next three sentences all restate the same warning in slightly different words (not availability, not usage, never an enabled/disabled state); one consolidated caveat would carry the same guardrail with less bulk.

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 need no explanation, and the description covers scope, auth resolution, and the key semantic trap. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only the behavior when no configuration is saved is unaddressed.

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's description already points to hgr_list_channels as its source, so the schema carries the load. The description only reinforces scope ('one visible store') and mentions ChannelOAuthId resolution, adding no syntax or format detail beyond structured fields — 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 explicitly saved supplier configuration for one store, and sharpens the boundary by excluding supplier availability and listing usage data. The word 'explicitly saved' implicitly separates it from computed-settings siblings, but no sibling is named outright, so an agent must still infer the routing against hgr_get_computed_source_configuration and hgr_get_sources.

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?

Gives strong negative guidance — this is not availability data, not usage data, and must never be read as an enabled/disabled/suspended supplier state. That is real when-not guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative tool an agent should call instead when it actually wants availability or computed settings.

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