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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description characterizes this as a status check with no mention of side effects or destructive behavior. This is a direct contradiction between description and annotation. The added auth context does not compensate; the contradiction makes the tool's safety profile ambiguous.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the core action, return contents, precondition, no-grant response, cost, and authentication method. Information is front-loaded with the main purpose and flows logically without redundancy.

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 0-parameter tool without an output schema, the description does well by enumerating return values and explaining authentication and preconditions. However, it fails to reconcile the destructiveHint annotation, leaving a major gap in the tool's behavioral profile. The contradiction means the description is not fully trustworthy or complete.

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 has zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The schema coverage is 100% vacuously, and the description correctly imposes no parameter expectations. While it doesn't explain the auth header in parameter terms, that is appropriately addressed as a behavioral note rather than a schema parameter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Check the status of an inbound channel LQWD') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on channel grant status rather than balance or registration. It also lists the specific return fields (state, funding txid, balances), making the tool's 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?

It clearly states when the tool is meaningful ('only if you registered with pubkey+node_uri') and what happens without a grant ('no active grant' response), plus notes it is always free. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is enough to infer when to use it over siblings.

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