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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: 'It never returns a webhook secret' and 'Requires connecting a Valet account.' These are constraints not derivable from the structured fields.

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 opening is well front-loaded, but the sentence 'how to find a channel to attach, or one no agent holds' is a garbled fragment that reads awkwardly and interrupts the otherwise clean two-mode structure.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned row fields (name, kind, status, catalog origin, agents, channel URL) plus the auth prerequisite. Only the sibling-routing gap keeps it from being fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3, but the description adds the semantic effect of each parameter's presence/absence and the default-org fallback, clarifying what 'omitting' org_name actually resolves to.

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 gives a specific verb and resource and splits behavior into two clearly-differentiated modes (org-wide listing when 'name' is omitted, per-agent listing when supplied). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling list_catalog_channels even though it mentions the catalog as a field.

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 the condition that selects each mode: omit 'name' for organization channels, supply 'name' for that agent's channels. No exclusions or named alternatives are given, so an agent gets context but not routing guidance against siblings like list_catalog_channels.

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