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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety behavior needs no restating. The description adds that each channel carries a status and that channels are a publishing prerequisite, but says nothing about what statuses exist or what an empty result means.

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, zero redundancy, with the resource and provider list front-loaded. The first sentence is a noun fragment rather than a clause, which is a minor stylistic weakness, but every sentence contributes information.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and explicit annotations, the description covers what is returned (channels with status) and the business precondition for publishing. Only richer detail on status values or empty-state behavior is missing.

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 single project_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including its optionality when the account has one project. The description adds no further semantics about project_id or scoping, so the schema carries the full burden — baseline 3.

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?

Names the specific resource (connected publishing channels) and enumerates the supported providers (WordPress, Ghost, Webflow, Shopify, Wix, Custom API) plus the payload ('with status'). It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, none of which touch publishing channels, though the verb 'list' is only implied by the name rather than stated.

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?

'A project needs a connected channel before anything can be published' implies the use case (verify connectivity before publishing) but never states when to call this versus alternatives or what to do if no channel exists. Usage must be inferred from the prerequisite sentence rather than read directly.

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