list_person_channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the behavior of the 'person' parameter (multiple formats, failure on ambiguity). This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not cover other aspects like pagination or permissions.

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 concise—two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides essential usage details, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 list tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers core behavior and an edge case (ambiguity). However, it could mention whether pagination or sorting is supported, which would improve completeness.

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 'person' is minimal ('a string that will be trimmed'), but the tool description adds significant meaning: it specifies the accepted formats (ID, email, display name) and the behavior for ambiguous names. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 tool lists contact channels for a person, specifying the accepted identifier formats. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_persons' and 'add_person_channel' by its resource (channels) and action (list), but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 guidance on acceptable identifier types (ID, email, exact display name) and warns that ambiguous names fail, suggesting retry with email or ID. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool, but it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for adding/updating channels).

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