list_organization_channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by explaining input flexibility (organizationId accepts ID or exact name) and mentioning return fields (channelId, provider label, value, optional activity metadata). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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: first explains purpose and identification, second lists return data. No extraneous information. Front-loaded with key details.

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 an output schema present, the description's brief mention of return fields is sufficient. It covers identification method and what is returned. Pagination is not mentioned but may not be necessary. Overall, it is complete given the context.

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 schema description for organizationId is minimal ('a string that will be trimmed'). The tool description adds critical context: the parameter can be an ID or an exact unique organization name. This significantly enhances understanding 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'contact channels' for an organization, specifying identification by ID or exact unique name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_channels or list_contact_channel_providers by focusing on organization-specific 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 implies when to use (list contact channels for an organization) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like add_organization_channel or list_contact_channel_providers. It provides some guidance on parameter usage (ID or exact name) but lacks exclusion criteria.

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