list_data_channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about this being a non-destructive read, whether results reflect the on-disk lake versus a live source, or what happens when a lake has no channels. For a simple list operation the risk is low, but the disclosure is essentially absent.

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 fragments, resource stated first, alias qualification second — zero filler. It is arguably slightly too terse, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 single-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (channel names) but omits scope details an agent might need, such as whether the list is asset-class scoped or whether it includes empty/inactive channels.

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 asset_class enum is documented in-schema as required with an explanation of why it cannot be inferred. The description adds nothing beyond that, 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 resource ('channel names present in the lake') with a clear verb-less listing intent, and explicitly identifies itself as an alias of catalog-channels, which lets an agent distinguish it from unrelated siblings. It stops short of distinguishing it from near-neighbours like list_dates or list_exchanges except by resource name.

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 alias note implies this tool and catalog-channels are interchangeable, which is useful routing information, but it never states when to prefer one over the other or which lakes/asset classes qualify. Usage is inferred from the resource name rather than spelled out.

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