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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real context: the data dependency on `POST /api/play-report` and the consequence of an empty panel without reports. It stops short of describing auth, rate limits, or result shape beyond the named fields.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose before enumerating fields, and every clause conveys meaning. The field-by-field enumeration (`geo`, `regions[]`, `latency[]`, `pra_voce`) is dense but justified given there is no output schema.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, which it does by naming `geo`, `regions[]`, `latency[]`, and `pra_voce`. It also discloses the data-freshness prerequisite, leaving little an agent needs before calling it.

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 is a single `id` parameter at 100% schema description coverage, with the schema already supplying format and an example (`GloboNews.br`). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so this sits at the baseline where the schema does the work.

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 resource (channel community health) and its content: success rate, failure reasons, affected environments. The framing 'tells the channel is off the air from the channel is blocked in your country' sharpens the purpose, though it never names sibling tools like `health` or `geo` to differentiate 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?

Usage is implied through the diagnostic scenario (distinguishing a regional block from a general outage), and it notes the prerequisite that the panel is empty without community reports. However, it never states when to reach for this versus the sibling `health` tool or the `geo` tool, leaving the agent to infer.

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