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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (descriptors with units and ranges), which is real added value, but says nothing about pagination, volume, or whether unregistered/dormant channels appear.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the scope ('across kernels') front-loaded before the return contents. Every clause earns its place.

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 usefully compensates by naming the returned fields (units, ranges). For a read-only, zero-parameter listing tool that is nearly sufficient; only the absence of any result-size or scoping note keeps it below a 5.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline for a no-param tool applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('registered sensor channels across kernels'), which tells the agent this is the cross-kernel view rather than the per-kernel get_kernel_sensors. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no alternative named despite get_kernel_sensors, get_kernel_sensors and get_sensor_channels sitting adjacent in the tool list. The agent must infer that this is the broad inventory call from the word 'across kernels' alone.

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