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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the guide=1 availability gate, the two-day staleness window, and the advice to check the response date. It doesn't describe pagination or error behavior, keeping it below 5.

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 dense sentences that front-load the core purpose and then layer constraints and field hints, with little waste. Slightly terse and mixes prose with backticked field names, but it is well structured.

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 steps in usefully by naming the returned field `guide_now` and warning to check the response date. Combined with the availability and validity rules, an agent has enough to call and interpret the result, though return structure is only partially sketched.

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 parameter with 100% schema coverage ('ID do canal no catálogo'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no further meaning about the `id` value, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 resource — today's programming for a channel — and enumerates exactly what it contains (now, next, and the full list). This clearly separates it from the generic sibling get_channel without needing to name it.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition for use: only channels with `guide=1` are supported, and data is valid for up to two days, so the agent knows when the call is useful. It does not name an explicit alternative tool for channels without a guide, so it falls short of a 5.

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