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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that deprecated channels are not exposed, which is useful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, describe the response format, or mention pagination or rate limits. Given the absence of annotations, this is a notable gap for a listing tool.

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 description is well-structured, front-loading purpose, then usage scenarios, supported types, exclusions, prerequisites, and follow-ups. Each sentence carries value, and the length is justified by the amount of contextual information packed into it.

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 should explain what the tool returns. It states it returns a channel list and mentions resolving channel_id, but it does not describe the response structure (e.g., whether results are grouped when group_by_type is true, what fields each channel object has, or pagination behavior). This leaves the agent guessing about the output format.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (type and group_by_type) adequately. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely repeats the list of supported types, which is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb (获取) and resource (渠道列表), and explains its purpose: resolving channel names to channel_id and interpreting channel types. It differentiates from sibling search tools by positioning itself as a prerequisite, making its role unambiguous.

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 description explicitly provides when to use it ('适用于用户说...时') with concrete examples, states no prerequisites, and names the follow-up tools (zhini_search_customers, zhini_search_sessions). This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke it versus alternatives.

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