channel_coverage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Read-only' is redundant, but the description adds real behavioral context: that unreporting channels are indistinguishable from zero-traffic ones, and that shops needing reconnection are flagged. These interpretation caveats go beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the key interpretive warning. The trailing 'Read-only' is redundant with annotations and the '[#df2820]' artifact is noise, but overall it is tight and well-ordered.

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 carries the return-value burden and does explain conceptually what comes back (reporting channels, metrics, reconnection flags). For a zero-required-parameter diagnostic tool this is largely complete, though coverage of metric naming/format is absent.

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 (workspace) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax or scoping detail about the workspace argument, making baseline 3 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?

States a specific resource and scope: which connected sales channels report performance data and which metrics each supplies. This is clearly distinct from performance-reading siblings like channel_performance, though no sibling is named explicitly. An agent can grasp the tool's role without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger: 'Check this before concluding a listing has no traffic,' which is a concrete precondition. It does not name a competing alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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