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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the tool 'changes nothing itself' and instead returns the Integrations page name and the `valet channels reauthorize` command. It also notes the account prerequisite, which the annotations don't cover.

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?

Core action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by eligibility, mechanics, and prerequisites. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical credential-type list makes it slightly dense.

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 helpfully explains what the call returns (a pointer to the Integrations page and CLI command) and states prerequisites and refusal behavior. Complete for a read-only pointer tool, though it could note any rate or account-state constraints.

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 in the schema. The description adds no format, naming, or disambiguation detail for `channel` or `org_name`, so the 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?

The description states a precise verb and resource: renew the third-party authorization of a specific Slack or Telegram channel. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from reauthorize_connector by naming the channel context and the credential-bearing channel types. An agent can tell exactly what this operates on without opening the 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?

It gives clear eligibility conditions ('workspace access was revoked or bot scopes changed') and an explicit exclusion ('A channel with no credentials (cron, heartbeat, webhook, email, mcp) is refused'). It does not name a sibling alternative to route to, but the when-to-use context is concrete and complete.

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