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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds return content (full record and streams), but provides no additional behavioral details such as auth requirements, error conditions, or rate limits.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the return content. It could be slightly more direct by using a verb, but it is efficient and avoids waste.

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 getter with one required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description adequately explains what is returned—the full channel record and relevant streams. No important gaps remain for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, including an example for the id parameter. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description identifies the resource (channel) and specifies the return content (full record plus streams that point to the hop), making it distinguishable from guide or search tools. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like get_channel_guide or search_channels.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is only implied by the name and the required id parameter, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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