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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: "List" and "live" establish a read-only, non-destructive operation and "live" implies expired claims are excluded, which is useful. It discloses the conflict-scoping rule but says nothing about ordering, volume, permissions, or whether results are paginated.

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 short sentences: what it returns first, then the one non-obvious constraint. No filler and nothing buried.

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 optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, this is nearly complete, and listing the returned fields compensates for the absent output schema. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and permissions, which are less critical for a read.

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 channel parameter already documents its format and default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the notion that the channel should be the caller's project channel, which is marginal but real guidance beyond the schema.

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?

"List the live claims in a channel" pairs a specific verb with a specific resource and even enumerates the returned fields (path, holder, expiry, note). It distinguishes itself implicitly from the singular sibling "claim" by scoping to listing live claims, though it never names an alternative outright.

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 second sentence gives real guidance on which channel value to pass ("use your project's channel") and explains why scope matters. It stops short of saying when to use this versus claim, release, or answer, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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