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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns JSON, explains the semantics of `id`, `channelId`, and `sources` (including null meaning all sources including future ones). It clearly implies a read-only operation and provides essential field-level context without contradictions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then efficiently packs necessary details about field semantics and usage. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is self-sufficient. It covers the operation, output structure, field meanings, and how the data integrates with other tools. This is complete for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional information.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes beyond by explaining the output fields (`id`, `channelId`, `sources`) and their significance, preempting potential confusion about the data structure, which adds substantial value beyond the empty schema.

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 the authenticated customer's registered notification channels (Slack or email). It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('registered notification channels'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_alert_channel and remove_alert_channel.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, it explains how the output `id` should be used in other tools (save_alert_rule/set_alert_rule_delivery) and clarifies the difference between `id` and `channelId`. This provides clear context on when to use the tool and how to apply its results, though it doesn't state when not to use it.

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