List channels for an organization

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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description adds real behavioral context: single-request with no automatic pagination, and 'provider errors are failures even with HTTP 200,' which is an important error-semantics disclosure. Annotations already cover the safety profile, so this added context lifts the score.

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?

Four short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The phrasing is dense and slightly telegraphic ('Current Buffer GraphQL channels'), but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description notes what is returned (channels), the pagination/request model, and error handling, which is fairly complete for a read-only list tool whose annotations and schema already carry most of the load.

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 83%, so the schema already documents parameters like filter, account, payload, and organizationId. The description only indirectly touches the fields parameter ('Use upstream fields to bound data'), which is the specified baseline of 3.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List channels for an organization,' and clarifies the data source ('Current Buffer GraphQL channels'). This pairs with the sibling get_channel (singular) reasonably, though the description never explicitly distinguishes itself from that or other list tools.

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?

It offers working guidance ('Use upstream fields to bound data') and notes pagination behavior ('One request, no automatic pagination'), which implies how to use it. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_channel or when not to use it.

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