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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of genuinely new behavioral information, the read-scope auth requirement, but says nothing about what the check returns (a list, per-channel booleans, config details) or whether unconfigured channels are included.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The only weakness is that the brevity shades into under-specification rather than economy.

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 trivial zero-parameter read, the description covers purpose and auth but leaves the result shape unaddressed, and there is no output schema to fall back on. An agent knows what the call does but not what it will receive back.

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 zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing to compensate for and the baseline of 4 for empty schemas would ordinarily apply. It drops to 3 because the absence of parameters is itself unremarked: an agent gets no hint whether the check is workspace-wide, account-wide, or otherwise scoped.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'check which outreach channels are available and configured.' That is concrete enough to distinguish it from mutation siblings like send_channel_message or configure_responder, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts itself with, say, get_autopilot_status-style status checks.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of calling this before send_channel_message, no exclusion of cases, and no alternative tool named. The only contextual statement, 'requires read scope,' is an auth prerequisite rather than a usage rule.

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