Get a channel account

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-openWorld, but the description adds operationally relevant facts the annotations do not: required scopes (channels:read, luca:read), data sensitivity 'redacted', and the underlying GET endpoint. 'Does not require idempotency' is slightly confusing next to idempotentHint=true but reads as 'no idempotency key needed' rather than a contradiction.

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?

Front-loads the substantive content (what is read, key fields) before the operational metadata block. The metadata lines (Luca operation, required scopes, idempotency) are boilerplate but compact and easy to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description still supplies auth scopes, sensitivity, endpoint, and workspace-override semantics. The main gap is routing guidance relative to the other channel tools, which is a usage concern rather than a missing prerequisite.

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 coverage is 67% – id is undocumented but self-evident as a UUID, while workspaceId/workspaceSlug already carry schema descriptions. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining that these override the environment-configured default workspace, which the schema alone does not state.

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 verb (Read) and resource (one channel account) and enumerates what the payload covers: status, health, disconnect cleanup state, and available coach actions. The singular 'one channel account' implicitly distinguishes it from the plural luca_channels_list, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Read one channel account' and 'Older rows stay readable by ID' imply the usage (fetch a single known channel by ID), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance versus luca_channels_list, luca_channels_catalog, or luca_channels_features. The workspace-override sentence is parameter guidance, not tool-selection guidance.

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