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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the METRICS_TOKEN auth requirement, the fact that `ip` is a secret-derived identifier, and that the public panel omits this field. It does not cover pagination or return shape, but adds real value on top of the annotations.

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?

Front-loads what the tool is, then layers auth, usage, and field semantics. Each sentence carries information and there is no filler, though it is a fairly dense multi-sentence block.

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 helpfully explains key return fields (ip identifier, retention_days) and the auth constraint, which are the non-obvious details an agent needs. Return format and pagination behavior are left implicit, keeping it just short of complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (ok, limit, channel_id) are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description explains output field meanings (ip, retention_days) rather than parameter usage, so it adds little beyond the schema for parameters themselves.

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 ('raw reports of a channel') and clearly frames it as an operator-only investigation tool, distinguishing it from 'the public panel' which returns less data. It does not name a specific sibling tool, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 explicit context: 'Operator only (METRICS_TOKEN)' and 'Use it to investigate one channel.' This tells the agent both the audience and the intended use case, though it does not spell out when-not to use it versus alternatives.

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