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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, but the description adds real value beyond them: it requires a connected Valet account, it explicitly guarantees no webhook secret is ever returned, and it explains what a "degraded" channel means. It does not discuss pagination or result limits, which would matter for a list operation.

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 mode logic is front-loaded immediately after the opening sentence, which is the right ordering. The return-field enumeration is dense and delivered as one long run-on paragraph, but with no output schema present each of those details earns its place.

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 takes on the burden of describing return shape and does so thoroughly: row fields, webhook/mcp URL, app delivery path, last five delivery states, and the degraded condition. Auth prerequisite and the secret-exclusion guarantee round out what an agent needs before calling.

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%, so both parameters are already documented; the description reinforces the dual role of name (agent or app) but adds nothing about the syntax of a name. org_name is never mentioned in the description at all, leaving the schema to carry it — baseline 3 applies.

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 channels") and then defines three distinct scopes keyed on the name argument: organization channels, an agent's channels, an app's channels. The scope is unambiguous, but it never names the closest sibling (list_catalog_channels) or explains how this differs from it, even though it mentions whether a channel "came from the catalog".

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 three-mode breakdown (omit name, pass an agent's name, pass an app's name) is effectively when-to-use guidance, and "how to find a channel to attach" gives a concrete scenario. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to call it, so it's clear context rather than full routing.

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