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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'Read-only', which is the most important safety trait for this tool, but it does not discuss permissions, error behavior for invalid IDs, or whether the returned settings may include sensitive configuration.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a useful parenthetical list of channel types. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 two-parameter getter with full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the resource, scope, and read-only nature. The only minor gap is that 'Full settings' is vague about the return shape, but no output schema exists and the tool's complexity is low.

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 both required parameters are fully documented in the schema, including their source list tools. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that it returns the full settings of a single channel and enumerates supported channel types. It implies a read/get operation for one connection, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_agent_connections or update_agent_connection.

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?

Usage is implied by 'one channel' and 'Read-only', making it clear this retrieves a single existing channel. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_agent_connections or update_agent_connection, nor does it mention the prerequisite of obtaining the IDs via those list tools.

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