List VOD channels

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear from structured data. The description adds nothing about behavior—no mention of rate limits, response shape, or what a 'channel' entails. For a read-only list operation, annotations carry most of the burden, but the description still offers no supplementary context.

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?

The description is a single short sentence that includes a '[READ]' tag and an API endpoint. It is concise and front-loaded, but the endpoint detail may be redundant for an agent that only needs to invoke the tool. It earns its place by signaling the HTTP method, but it is not optimally structured for decision-making.

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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It omits any guidance on usage context or the nature of the returned data, which would help an agent decide between this and similar list tools. It is missing the 'when to use' layer that would make it complete for a multi-tool environment.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no parameters are needed. No additional meaning is required or provided, which is appropriate.

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 tool name and title state a clear verb (list) and resource (VOD channels), which is sufficient to understand the action. The description itself adds only the API endpoint, but the name/title combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vod_channel or list_vod_videos. It is clear but not exceptionally specific beyond the naming.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_vod_channel for a single channel or list_vod_videos for videos. There is no mention of prerequisites, pagination, or context for use. It only states the underlying API call.

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