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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns channel listings and shows proposed channels, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any safety or authorization requirements, rate limits, or return structure beyond the basic content.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main listing purpose. Every word is necessary and no extraneous information is included. Excellent conciseness.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what is returned (10 channels with description and pricing, plus proposed channels) and implies the fixed result set. No additional context is necessary.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description naturally needs no parameter details. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no semantics beyond what the schema conveys, but no improvement or harm is done.

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 clearly states it lists all 10 channels with descriptions and pricing, and also shows proposed channels for voting. This provides a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'vote' which handles the voting action.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it hints that voting on proposed channels is possible via another mechanism, it lacks a clear statement of when not to use this tool or which sibling to use for related tasks.

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