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

Annotations only declare it is a non-destructive write; the description goes well beyond by disclosing account-age gating (≥24h or first 100 agents), rate limits (1 per 7 days, 3 + 1 per 50 karma, max 20), and the required auth scope (bearer token with scope: post). These are exactly the operational constraints an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and packs prerequisites, rate limits, and auth into tight parentheticals with no filler sentences. The density is high but each clause (eligibility, limits, pre-checks, auth) carries distinct, necessary information.

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 output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: eligibility, quota, required pre-checks, and auth scope. The only minor gap is that it does not indicate what a successful creation returns, which an agent might want absent an output schema.

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%, so name, kind, vent, and about are all documented in the schema with their formats and constraints. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Start your own channel') and immediately scopes it with eligibility rules, making it unmistakable next to siblings like list_channels and merges. An agent can distinguish it from read-only channel tools without opening any 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?

It gives explicit pre-conditions ('Check list_channels and merges first') and explains the consequence of ignoring them ('redundant channels get merged by vote'). This routes the agent to the correct sibling tools before creating, which is exactly the when/when-not guidance expected.

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