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

The annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, open-world listing operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the returned fields and the downstream use of channelOAuthId, but says nothing about pagination, authorization scope, or whether disconnected channels are included — details that would matter for a listing tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the operational cue. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 input parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description supplies the key operational context: what is listed, what fields come back, and how channelOAuthId is used downstream. It is nearly complete, though a brief note on scope (all connected channels, including disconnected ones?) would remove the last ambiguity.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter guidance, and there are no parameters for the schema or description to explain.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Lists the user's connected stores/channels') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from potentially overlapping siblings such as hgr_get_sources or hgr_get_channel_configuration, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It gives one useful workflow cue — use channelOAuthId from this response for store-scoped endpoint tools — which implies this is a discovery call. However, it never states when to choose this over alternatives like hgr_get_sources or hgr_get_channel_configuration, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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