get_channels_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: no parameters, requires an API key, and the failure mode ('a disabled or unconfigured one silently delivers nothing'). It does not discuss rate limits or pagination, but for a parameterless read tool this is solid.

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?

Front-loaded with what it does, then why it matters, then the call contract. Four short sentences, none redundant; the caveat about silent non-delivery is the highest-value sentence and appears early.

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 naming the returned fields (enabled, credentials configured, recent delivery counts). Combined with the annotations and empty schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms 'takes no parameters' and instead characterizes what comes back per channel, which is the relevant semantic content 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?

Specific verb 'Report' plus explicit resource: configuration, connection state and delivery stats for every outreach channel, with named channels. Easily distinguished from siblings like update_channel or get_autopilot_status.

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?

States when to use it ('Check this before relying on a channel') and names the concrete downstream alternative ('natural first step before update_channel, so you know the current state rather than toggling blind'). Both the trigger and the relationship to a sibling tool are explicit.

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