List channel accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: required OAuth scope (luca:read), scopes list (channels:read), and data sensitivity (redacted), which an agent needs to reason about the call's constraints.

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-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by the out-of-scope note and operational metadata. Each line carries signal, though 'Does not require idempotency' partially restates the idempotentHint annotation rather than adding new 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?

With an output schema present, return-value details need not be spelled out, and the description still summarizes what each entry contains. Combined with scope, sensitivity, safety annotations, and the workspace-override note, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that both workspaceId and workspaceSlug are overrides of an environment-configured default workspace, which adds the semantic that these are optional context switches rather than required inputs.

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 (List) and resource (channel accounts) with useful scope detail: 'one per provider account, with each one's status, health, and what the composer can send through it.' It's clear and concrete, but it never names a sibling (e.g. luca_channels_get or luca_channels_catalog), so the agent must infer the list-vs-single distinction on its own.

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?

Gives a clear boundary statement – 'Connecting, pausing, and repairing an account stay in the Luca app' – telling the agent this tool cannot perform channel mutations, and explains the workspace override. It provides solid usage context but does not explicitly point to an alternative sibling when a single account or feature detail is needed.

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