Reach channel check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description still adds real context beyond them: zero-auth requirement, no external side effects, and the specific detail that it only reads environment variable names with no network, file writes or processes. That is exactly the supplementary behavioral disclosure this dimension rewards.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the usage cue and the scope of what is checked, the second packs the safety profile and return type. No filler and no repetition of the title 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it does cover what the report answers (which channels work, their cost and omissions) and that it returns a JSON doctor report. The only minor gap is that the report's field structure is not hinted at, but the content is described well enough to call the tool confidently.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing the description could add about argument semantics, and it correctly does not invent any.

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 verb and resource — checking which reach channels (web crawler, Reddit, X, official APIs) work for this user — and frames the tool's role as a pre-flight check. It is clearly distinguishable from telos.reach.api and telos.reach.menu because it is positioned as the diagnostic that runs before an actual call.

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?

"Use before any reach call" gives an explicit trigger condition and ordering relative to siblings. It does not name a specific alternative tool by name or state when-not-to-use, but the sequencing guidance is unambiguous enough that an agent knows exactly when to reach for it.

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