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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what is actually computed (counts and average completion progress), which is mild extra value, but it omits any note about the default exclusion of low-quality responses or scoping to a single project.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, but every clause (channels list, counts, average completion progress) 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, and annotations cover safety. The description is sufficient for a simple two-parameter read-only aggregate; only the low-quality filtering caveat is left to the schema.

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 50%: projectId is undocumented but self-explanatory, while includeLowQuality carries a thorough description in the schema. The description contributes nothing about either parameter, so it neither compensates for nor improves on the schema.

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 specific computation (how responses split across collection channels) and enumerates the channel values plus the reported metrics (counts, average completion progress). This clearly separates it from the sibling question_breakdown, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as question_breakdown or project_stats. The agent must infer the use case (channel-distribution analytics) entirely from the purpose statement.

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