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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent read, so this clears the lower bar easily and adds real context: ordering rule (built-ins first), dedup policy, deliberate exclusions (console and email), and the auth prerequisite. It also discloses that each entry signals whether setup can be completed by a call or requires a human in a browser, which is behaviorally material.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then progressively narrower detail. It runs several clauses long and the parenthetical kind list is useful but heavy; nearly every sentence earns its place, though it could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description does carry the burden of describing returns and largely succeeds: it explains what each entry contains and the inclusion/exclusion rules. It stops short of describing the returned fields (names, identifiers, requirement shape), so an agent still can't fully anticipate the payload.

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 100% and the single org_name parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the omit-to-default behavior. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns only the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the channel kinds an agent can have') and immediately scopes what each entry conveys ('what each needs before it works: a schedule, a webhook secret, or a browser authorization'). It distinguishes itself from list_channels (kinds vs. instances) and from create_channel by naming what that sibling excludes, so the agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Clear discovery context is implied ('what each needs before it works'), plus a named prerequisite ('Requires connecting a Valet account') and a contrast with create_channel. It never explicitly says 'call this before create_channel' or names list_channels as the alternative for existing channels, so the when-to-use is strong but not fully closed.

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