Channels

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

Annotations already signal read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying that this opens an interactive view rather than returning a plain list, and by indicating the status-related fields shown. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately, each sentence earning its place.

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 no-argument, read-only view tool with an output schema, the description covers what the view shows and when to use it. Annotations cover the safety profile, making the definition complete for the agent.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter-level documentation is unnecessary. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing the description needs to explain about parameters.

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 names a specific verb ('Open') and a clear resource ('connected social channels') with the detail of platform, account, and connection/token status. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_channels through the 'interactive view' framing, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user wants an interactive view of their connected channels.' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the stated trigger is clear and actionable.

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