List seller-channel capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific return scope (connectors, config state, operations) but does not disclose additional behaviors such as output size or potential prerequisites. For a simple no-parameter read-only tool, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 front-loads the verb 'Show' and enumerates the key output categories. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, read-only) and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It captures the essential purpose and distinguishes the tool's scope. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from channel_health, but that is not required for a basic inventory query.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds conceptual meaning by explaining what the tool returns, though no parameter details are necessary. It appropriately does not attempt to describe nonexistent parameters.

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 ('Show') with a clear resource ('installed connectors, configuration state, and supported operations'), which unambiguously states the tool's function. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like channel_health or the product/profile tools.

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 implies usage for inspecting channel capabilities but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Given the sibling channel_health, the description does not clarify when to choose one over the other, making the guidance merely implied rather than explicit.

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