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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that sensitive config values are redacted, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, output format, or whether inactive channels are included, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a single behavioral note. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.

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 no-parameter list tool, the description provides sufficient context: scope (team), channel types, and a key output behavior (redaction). It could mention what fields are returned, but the lack of an output schema is offset by the tool's simplicity.

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 takes no parameters, so the schema is trivially covered. The description adds meaningful context by listing channel types, which helps the agent understand the resource domain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description earns that.

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 clearly states the tool lists notification channels and enumerates the specific types (Email, Slack, Webhook, SMS, Web Push). This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_notification_rules.

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 description implies usage context (team-configured channels, read-only listing) but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like list_notification_rules are not mentioned, so guidance is only implied.

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