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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: results exclude credentials and private provider routing addresses, and 'Unavailable/unknown is not disconnected' prevents a false negative interpretation of channel state. It doesn't say anything about freshness or size of the payload, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource list, then guidance, then exclusions — each sentence carries a distinct job. The enumerated channel list is dense but justified by the breadth of what is returned. Minor redundancy between 'Unavailable/unknown is not disconnected' and the final scope sentence, but no 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns — it does so by enumerating channels and readiness, and by stating what is deliberately omitted (credentials, routing addresses). It could go further on response shape (per-channel status object, aggregate readiness), which is the only gap for a two-param read tool.

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% with only two parameters, both documented in the schema (site_id references list_sites, user_goal explains the optional one-sentence goal). The description adds no parameter-level meaning 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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus an enumerated set of resources: live chat widget config, business WhatsApp connection/readiness, phone/Voice Agent, Twilio SMS number and carrier registration. The closing sentence carves out what is NOT covered (WhatsApp Inbox, floating WhatsApp link, owner assistant), so an agent can scope the read without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit trigger: 'Use before answering whether a channel is set up or proposing changes,' which bounds when to call it. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., get_chat_widget_status, get_site_settings) or stating when not to call, so it is clear but not fully routed.

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