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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds the transport detail (GET /channels) plus a full list of returned fields (id, type, name, country, currency) — valuable since there is no output schema. It stops short of describing pagination limits or result ordering.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, and the resource identity plus the motivating use case are front-loaded ahead of the endpoint detail.

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 correctly compensates by naming the fields returned and the id-filtering use case, and pagination is handled by the schema. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the list is paginated in practice or how many channels typically return.

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% and both parameters (page, items_per_page) are fully documented in the schema, including the next_page chaining instruction. The description adds nothing about pagination, so the baseline of 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 ('List') and resource ('sales channels connected to eDesk') and enumerates the channel types and returned fields, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling list tools like edesk_list_contacts or edesk_list_tags 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?

'Use the ids to filter tickets and orders' gives downstream context for the returned values, but it never says when to call this tool versus a sibling, nor does it mention pagination behavior (next_page is only hinted at in the param schema). Usage is implied rather than guided.

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