GetChannels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention that the tool is a read operation, what it returns, or any side effects. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about behavioral traits.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is overly brief and omits important context, making it less useful than it could be. It sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, e.g., the structure of a 'channel list'. It does not, leaving the agent to guess. The description is inadequate for the tool's complexity (single parameter, no nested objects).

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a detailed description for 'countryIsoCode', including the format and a reference to another tool. The main description adds no further parameter information. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter semantics well.

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 the tool returns 'The channel list for one country', clearly indicating it retrieves channels filtered by country. The verb 'list' is implied. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAvailableChannels' or 'GetChannelsIndex', which may have similar purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The parameter description references 'GetChannelsByCountry' for finding available countries, but this is not in the main description.

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