channel_details_v2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it offers no information about what the tool does (e.g., read-only vs. mutation), authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. It fails to describe any behavioral traits beyond the minimal name, making it inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely brief ('Channel Details (v2)'), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks essential details like the tool's action or purpose, so it doesn't earn its place as a helpful description. While structured as a simple phrase, it fails to convey meaningful information upfront.

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 the complexity (a tool likely for retrieving channel data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it behaves, or its use cases, leaving critical gaps for the agent to understand and invoke it correctly in context with sibling tools.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameters without needing additional explanation in the description.

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 'Channel Details (v2)' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name with a version suffix. It doesn't specify what action the tool performs (e.g., 'retrieve', 'fetch', 'get') or what kind of details it provides. While it mentions the resource ('Channel'), it lacks a clear verb and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'channel_details' (without v2).

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. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools (e.g., how it differs from 'channel_details' or when to choose it over 'channel_search'). This leaves the agent with no usage instructions.

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