list_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for transparency. It only discloses the HTTP method (GET), which implies read-only behavior, but nothing about permissions, pagination, response structure, or side effects. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with no external metadata.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase with an endpoint reference. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, which earns it a high conciseness score. However, it is also under-specified, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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?

Given the tool has 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand filtering capabilities, return values, or when to call this over siblings. The one-line description does not provide enough context for effective tool selection and invocation.

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%, and every parameter already has a description in the input schema (e.g., page, size, status, sort_field). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema does the heavy lifting, so the baseline of 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 '渠道列表' clearly means 'channel list', and the endpoint GET /v1/channels reinforces the resource and action. It is specific in identifying the tool's purpose, but it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like list_channel_products or list_pricing_channels, so it isn't a perfect 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other list_* tools. There is no mention of authentication, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer entirely from the name and endpoint.

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