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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: that channels are derived from playbooks' 'Where to report' sections, that lang determines the country, and that slug filters to one situation while no slug returns deduplicated all. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 extremely concise—two sentences plus a list-like structure using arrows and examples. Every word adds value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides specific, actionable context for the parameters.

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 the low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool returns (channels per country), how lang and slug affect results, and that results are deduplicated. It could mention the output format (e.g., list of channel names or objects), but the current level is sufficient for most agents to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the country mapping for each lang value (e.g., 'lang=ro/en/hu → channels in ROMANIA') and the effect of the 'slug' parameter (with slug: only that situation's channels; without: all, deduplicated). This clarifies the behavioral impact beyond the schema's enum and optional text.

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 provides 'real reporting channels for digital incidents' from playbooks, and differentiates from siblings by focusing on channels rather than playbook content or freshness. It gives specific examples for different languages and countries, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explains when to use the tool (to get reporting channels) and how the 'lang' parameter selects country-specific channels (e.g., ro/en/hu → Romania, pl → Poland). It also covers the effect of the optional 'slug' parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like compass_find_playbook.

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