List channel emotes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context by naming the three third-party providers the result aggregates, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or result shape. Modest added value above annotations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the provider list as a tight appositive. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 zero-required-param read tool with a fully documented schema, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is sufficient. It could note the return shape or that results are read-only aggregates, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 optional 'channel' parameter is fully documented in the schema (24-char hex, defaulting behavior). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('emotes usable on a channel'), and goes further by enumerating the three source providers (Twitch, BTTV, FFZ). No sibling tool covers emotes, so an agent can identify it uniquely without opening the schema.

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 purpose strongly implies when to reach for it (when you need a channel's emote set), but the description gives no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. For a simple single-resource read tool this implied usage is adequate, but no routing guidance is offered.

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