marketing_get_channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the conceptual output (channels and framework) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive. However, the lack of parameters and the informational nature make the behavior 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 a single concise sentence that packs the necessary information (framework name, process, and usage) without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key identifier.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose, the description fully covers what the tool does, its context (acquisition channels), and its method. No additional information is needed for correct invocation.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 clearly specifies the tool provides the 19 traction channels and Bullseye framework for acquisition channel selection. It uses specific verbs (scan, rank, test, focus) and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling marketing tools like positioning or messaging.

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 description explicitly states 'Use to choose acquisition channels', giving clear context for when to use. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the tool's focused purpose.

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