list_channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the enumeration of channel types; it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what a returned channel contains, which is a modest but real gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core purpose first and the clarifying examples second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 zero-param, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs in order to select and invoke it, and the examples give a usable sense of the result set. It stops short of describing return fields or pagination behavior, which would be the remaining detail worth adding.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies: no parameter semantics are needed because the schema is empty.

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 ('connected social channels'), and clarifies the resource by naming concrete channel types (Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger pages). No sibling tool lists channels, so no differentiation is required, but the description also doesn't scope what 'connected' means beyond the parenthetical examples.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the zero-parameter signature: an agent calls this to discover which channels are available. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., authentication or account connection), and no named alternative.

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