get_channel_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact return shape, including fields and example values, and mentions validation error behavior for blank or malformed channel_id. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics or auth/rate-limit behavior, but 'Retrieve' and the status-check context make the read-only nature reasonably clear.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, usage context, and return shape are each covered in a single sentence with no filler. Every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the necessary return shape, usage context, and validation behavior. It is nearly complete, though it does not describe behavior for unknown channel IDs or non-ACTIVE statuses, and the literal-looking status ('ACTIVE') is slightly ambiguous.

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 schema already documents channel_id with format constraints and an example. The description adds little beyond saying the channel is 'identified by its channel_id,' so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and names the exact resource ('x402 payment channel') and the aspects returned (operational status, limits, settlement state). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by positioning it as the first lifecycle step before screening or payment verification.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this as the first step of the channel lifecycle before screening an address or verifying a payment.' However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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