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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing bulk execution via channel_ids and specifying the metadata fields returned, without contradicting the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a useful bulk-support note. No filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 simple read tool with no output schema, it names the returned metadata fields and batch capability. However, it omits account parameter semantics, batch size/behavior, and error/not-found handling, leaving some practical gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains channel_ids as batch support, but leaves the account parameter unexplained and does not clarify whether channel_ids replaces or supplements the required channel_id.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('a channel's metadata') and enumerates the exact fields returned (type, name, topic, parent, permissions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like discord_get_message or discord_list_channels.

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 bulk support note gives useful context for batched execution, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like discord_list_channels, nor does it mention account selection or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.

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