Get VOD channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the [READ] tag in the description is purely redundant. Nothing is disclosed about auth requirements, 404 behavior for unknown channel IDs, or rate limits, so the description adds no behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

It is a single terse fragment with zero padding and the resource path is front-loaded, which is structurally fine. But the brevity is under-specification rather than economy, since the line carries almost no decision-relevant information.

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 get-by-identifier tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum identify what the returned channel represents and the ID format. Instead it supplies only an OpenAPI path reference, which is not enough for an agent to call it confidently against its many siblings.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The path template '/channels/{channel}' hints that channel_id is a path segment, but the description never clarifies whether it expects an opaque ID, a slug, or a name, leaving the agent to guess the accepted format.

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?

The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name in HTTP form: get_vod_channel -> 'GET /channels/{channel}'. It adds only an API version tag and a redundant [READ] marker, and it never says what a VOD channel is or how it differs from sibling get_vod_video / list_vod_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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as list_vod_channels (for enumeration) or get_vod_video (for a single asset). The only weak signal is the [READ] tag implying a fetch rather than a mutation.

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