Get a channel by ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral facts beyond that: 'One request, no automatic pagination' and 'provider errors are failures even with HTTP 200.' The one weak spot is 'Current Buffer GraphQL channel,' which is vague and adds little.

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 action and reasonably short. But the sentence 'Current Buffer GraphQL channel' is vague filler that doesn't clearly earn its place, while the pagination and error sentences do carry weight.

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 read-only get-by-ID tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral caveats (no auto-pagination, error semantics). It falls short on situating the tool against its siblings (get_channels, get_content_item), which an agent needs to select 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 schema already documents id, fields, account, payload, and payload_file in detail. The description only gestures at the fields parameter ('Use upstream fields to bound data') without adding syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Get a channel by ID'), so the action is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes this from the sibling 'get_channels' (the plural/list variant), leaving the agent to infer the singular-vs-list split 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?

The description offers tips ('Use upstream fields to bound data') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_channels or graphql_query. There is no stated condition or exclusion that would route an agent between siblings.

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