List linked channel accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scoping ('linked to this EzUGC account') and tells the agent what kind of entities come back, but says nothing about empty results, result shape, or what happens if nothing is linked.

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 resource named first and the qualifier trailing. No wasted clauses, though the '24/7 agent messaging' tail is context rather than operational 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, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-optional-param read tool this is close to complete; only the tie-in to the linking flow (create_channel_link_token) is missing.

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 only parameter (channel) has 100% schema description coverage ('Filter by channel, e.g. \'telegram\'.'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description reinforces the channel concept via the Telegram example but adds no extra detail such as case sensitivity or valid values beyond the schema.

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+resource ('List external messaging accounts ... linked to this EzUGC account') and clarifies what those accounts are with a concrete example (Telegram chats). It is clearly distinct from the write-side sibling create_channel_link_token, though it never names siblings 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as create_channel_link_token (to link a new account) or whoami. The '24/7 agent messaging' phrase hints at context but leaves the agent to infer the workflow on its own.

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