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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It correctly identifies that this is a read-only listing (no destructive behavior implied), and it reveals that it returns both active and proposed channels. It does not discuss pagination or performance, but for a 0-parameter tool returning a fixed set, this suffices.

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, two-sentence paragraph with zero filler. Every word adds value: it specifies the count (10), content (descriptions, pricing), and extra feature (proposed channels). No verbosity.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete for a simple listing tool. It states what data is returned and that proposed channels are included. No mention of output format or sorting, but the tool's simplicity and 8 sibling tools keep the burden 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the description has no parameters to document. It nonetheless adds meaning by describing what the tool returns (names, descriptions, pricing, and proposed channels), which adds context 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 a specific verb+resource ('list channels') and adds the unique scope: 'All 10 channels with descriptions and pricing' and 'Also shows proposed channels you can vote on.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'vote' and 'start_subscription'.

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 the tool is for browsing available channels and proposed channels, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to use get_summary or get_template instead). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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