get_channels_status

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: requires an API key, returns per-channel enabled/configured/delivery-count information, and warns that disabled channels silently deliver nothing. No contradiction with annotations; in fact, it reinforces the read-only safety profile with practical operational detail.

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 short, purpose-driven paragraphs: the main capability, the recommended usage timing, and the safety/return summary. Every sentence adds meaningful information; no filler or redundancy beyond what annotations already covered.

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 compensates by stating exactly what is returned: whether each channel is enabled, whether credentials are configured, and recent delivery counts. It also provides authorization context, behavioral caveats, and a clear relationship to update_channel, making the tool fully self-contained.

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, and the schema already reflects this with an empty properties object; the description explicitly confirms 'takes no parameters.' Since there are no parameters to document, the description cannot add more value here.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Report') and identifies the exact resource ('configuration, connection state and delivery stats for every outreach channel'), naming the channel types. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by framing it as the status/pre-flight check before update_channel.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Check this before relying on a channel' and 'natural first step before update_channel.' It also gives a concrete reason—disabled/unconfigured channels silently deliver nothing—and clarifies this is a read-only, no-change operation, which implies when not to use it.

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