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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already establish a non-destructive write. The description adds real context beyond that: it returns the channel record with a generated id, PCC stays transport-neutral, and vendor specifics belong in the free-form describe field. It does not cover permissions/auth prerequisites, but with annotations present the bar is lower.

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?

Four tight sentences that lead with the action, then the lifecycle timing, then the transport/describe contract. The only slightly expendable line is 'PCC the substrate stays neutral,' which is flavor more than instruction but still short.

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?

Handles a 9-parameter, nested-object tool well: the caller knows what it does, when to call it, what it returns, and how the enum vs. free-form fields divide responsibility. No output schema exists, yet the return shape (channel record with generated id) is stated; missing only auth/error behavior details.

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 the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining the design intent of describe (vendor specifics authored by the operator's agent) and the small stable transport enum while explicitly contrasting it with the free-form field. That adds interpretive value the schema text alone does not.

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 (attach) and resource (notification/dispatch channel to an operator) plus the rationale (so PCC can ping them when a job lands). This clearly separates it from list_operator_channels, update_operator_channel and delete_operator_channel. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops just short of the top score.

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 concrete timing guidance: 'The operator's onboarding agent calls this AFTER the conversation that produced the channel record.' That tells the agent when in the lifecycle to call it, but there is no explicit when-not or pointer to an alternative (e.g. update_operator_channel for existing records).

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