get_channel_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description enumerates the types of information returned, providing useful context. However, it does not explicitly state authentication requirements, behavior on invalid channel values, or the response format, leaving some ambiguity.

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 one sentence with a front-loaded verb followed by a compact list of content categories. No redundant information or filler words are included.

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 one-parameter getter, the description gives a comprehensive list of what the tool returns, which is sufficient for most use cases. It lacks details on error handling or output structure, but the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema make this less critical. The sibling tools suggest broader functionality, but this description is reasonably complete.

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 description lists the four allowed channel values (email, linkedin, instagram_dm, x_dm) which mirrors the schema enum, giving context that the parameter is an outreach channel. It does not explicitly name the 'channel' parameter or explain its semantics beyond the list, so with 0% schema coverage the description partially compensates but doesn't fully define the parameter.

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 opens with 'Get' and specifies exactly what is returned: safe volume limits, account setup, warmup protocol, kill signals, personalization floor, and legal basics. This content list clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like diagnose_campaign or get_sender_setup_checklist.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of sibling tools. The phrase 'for an outreach channel' implies the tool is channel-specific, but there are no explicit criteria, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned.

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