Get my channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the call is bound to the configured token rather than an arbitrary channel, and it enumerates the returned fields (_id, username, display name, provider, avatar), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the token scoping. 'and more' is slightly imprecise filler, but overall the text is efficient with no wasted preamble.

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 parameterless read with no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and mostly does so by naming the key fields. It stops short of a complete field list ('and more') and says nothing about error behavior when no token is configured, but nothing essential for invoking it 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?

The tool takes no parameters (empty schema, 0 required), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4; the field list is the only useful addition and it belongs to returns, not inputs.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the StreamElements channel that owns the configured token') and scopes it to the token-bearing channel, which implicitly separates it from siblings like channels_get / channels_get_details that require an id. It never names an alternative explicitly, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

One usage cue is given: 'Use it to find your channel id', which tells the agent a common scenario. There is no when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing against channels_get or users_current, which are the plausible alternatives for identity lookups.

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