superchat_get_channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the tool reads 'configuration' of a 'connected' channel, which is mildly useful context, but it does not disclose behavior such as error cases, authorization requirements, or response shape. With annotations covering the main behavioral traits, 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by a brief illustrative use case. Every part earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the schema or annotations.

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 read tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to know what to call and why. It could be more complete by hinting at the return value, but the phrase 'configuration' already implies what will be returned, so nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter channel_id is already well documented with a format pattern and an example reference to list_channels. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one connected channel's configuration') and identifies the lookup key ('by ID'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_channels and get_conversation, so an agent can tell what this tool does without inspecting its schema.

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 a concrete use case: 'before choosing a channel for a message.' This provides clear context for when to call the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. That is a minor gap given the many sibling get_* tools.

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