Get channel post-type options

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

The annotations already convey that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds useful context about what the options contain (post types, limits, media requirements) but does not disclose output format, error behavior, or what happens for an invalid channelId. This is acceptable but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 long, front-loads the core function in the first sentence, and includes a clear usage cue in the second. Every clause adds value without redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource, the context, and examples of return content. It could be slightly stronger by noting that the result is a list or object of options, but the current coverage is adequate for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter, channelId, is already described as 'The channel ID to get options for.' The description reinforces that options are platform-specific but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. A 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('platform-specific options for a channel'), and concrete examples (post types, character limits, media requirements). It also ties the purpose to a concrete workflow step, which helps an agent distinguish it from sibling tools like get_channel_health or list_channels.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when you need a platform's valid post types before creating a post, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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