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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: 'Marketplace credentials and integration settings are never returned' discloses a security-relevant exclusion, and 'GET /channels' names the underlying endpoint. It does not mention pagination behavior, but the schema's next_page hint covers that.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second gives the follow-up action, and the exclusions/endpoint are appended without padding. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields (id, name, type, state) and the excluded data. For a simple two-param read-only list tool this is nearly complete; only pagination response shape 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (page, page_size) carry their own defaults and limits, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or defaults, which matches the baseline 3 when coverage is complete.

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 and resource ('List the sales channels (stores) connected to Veeqo') and enumerates the concrete values an agent will see (Amazon, eBay, Shopify, POS), plus the returned fields (id, name, type, state). This is immediately distinguishable from sibling list tools like veeqo_list_warehouses or veeqo_list_suppliers.

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 orders by store' gives the downstream purpose and hints at why an agent would call this before veeqo_list_orders, which is useful implied usage. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives or any prerequisites, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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