get_channel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Fetch' with no mention of read-only nature, required permissions, error handling, or response format. It adds no transparency beyond the action itself, leaving the agent without safety or side-effect context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word is informative, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, no output schema), and the description covers the basic operation. However, with no output schema, it does not mention what the response contains or any error behavior, leaving the agent slightly underinformed. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — the single 'id' parameter has a clear description and example. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the schema fully compensates. Baseline 3 is 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?

The description 'Fetch a specific sales channel by ID' uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), names the resource ('sales channel'), and specifies the lookup method ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_channels (list) and aligns with get_collection/get_product patterns.

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 implies usage context: use this tool when you have a specific channel ID and need that single channel. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'use get_channels to list all') or when-not-to-use scenarios. The context is clear but understated.

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