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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (it writes/dispatches) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds valuable behavioral context: it fires synthetic jobs at *every enabled channel* and returns per-channel dispatch results (delivered, ref, warnings). However, it doesn't disclose side effects on external systems, rate limits, or whether synthetic jobs appear in production logs — details an agent might need. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence efficiently lists return values. No redundancy or filler. Could arguably be slightly more concise, but it earns its length by conveying purpose, timing, and output shape.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and return structure (delivered, ref, warnings). This is close to complete. A minor gap is the lack of detail on what 'delivered' vs 'warnings' means or whether failures are per-channel or global, but overall the definition is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter (slug), and the schema already documents it completely ('Operator slug.') at 100% coverage. The description reinforces that the tool operates on a single operator's channels, which implicitly scopes the slug. No syntax or format details are added beyond what the schema provides, but with a single fully-documented parameter, the baseline is 4.

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: 'Fire a synthetic job at every enabled channel for an operator'. The purpose — end-to-end integration testing before a real job — is unambiguous and clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like setup_test_job or list_operator_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?

The description gives clear usage context: 'so the onboarding agent (and the human watching) can confirm the integration end-to-end before a real job lands'. This establishes when to use it ('before a real job lands', during onboarding). It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the timing constraint is strong guidance.

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