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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the returned id becomes a write-once, first-touch attribution key that permanently drives ROI reporting, which is important context an annotation cannot express. It omits pagination/ordering behavior and whether inactive channels are returned by default.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the downstream-attribution warning. The closing 'forever. Pick deliberately.' is slightly dramatized but reinforces a real risk, so little is wasted.

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 simple three-parameter list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and downstream semantics well. It is incomplete on the mechanics an agent actually needs: what fields each record contains, how paging works, and how is_active filters the result.

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 0% and the tool has three parameters (limit, offset, is_active), yet the description says nothing about any of them — not the paging defaults, not the meaning of is_active, not whether inactive channels are excluded by default. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 and resource ('List the workspace's recruiting CHANNELS') and disambiguates the vague term 'sources' with concrete examples (OLX, Instagram, referral, walk-in). An agent can distinguish this from sibling list tools such as hr_list_campaigns or hr_list_vacancies 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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: call this before creating an application to obtain the 'id' to pass as 'source_id'. It does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions, so it falls short of full routing guidance, but the intended workflow is unambiguous.

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