Retrieve channel accounts

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, matching the read-only description, so no contradiction. The description adds conceptual background and filter/sort capabilities, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default filters (e.g., non-archived only), or response format. With no output schema, more behavioral detail would be helpful.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a useful definition parenthetical. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary verbosity.

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 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description could more thoroughly explain pagination, default behavior, and return value structure. It covers the core purpose but leaves behavioral details to the schema, which only partially compensates for the missing output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and parameters are self-describing. The description only generically mentions 'optional filters and sorting' without detailing any parameters. As per baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate; description adds no significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states the tool retrieves a list of channel accounts and defines what a channel account is, distinguishing it from single-entity tools like RetrieveChannelAccountDetails. The verb 'Retrieve' combined with 'list' makes the scope explicit, and the example clarifies the concept.

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 use for listing and filtering channel accounts, with optional filters and sorting. It provides clear context though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The 'list' wording differentiates it from single-account retrieval tools, but no direct comparison is given.

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