Global, per-organization configuration: the connected `channels` the actor can view (with per-feature authorization) plus the service-level capability catalog (`services`). One round trip for every capability domain; clients select only what they need.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation behavior: no automatic pagination, one request per round trip, and 'provider errors are failures even with HTTP 200' — the latter is a non-obvious error-handling trait worth surfacing.

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?

The description opens by repeating the tool title verbatim (the long `channels`/`services` blurb), which is pure duplication and pushes the actually informative sentences — pagination, error semantics — to the end. The front-loaded portion does not earn its place.

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 usefully sketches the return shape (`channels` with per-feature authorization, `services` catalog) and warns about error semantics. Given 100% schema coverage on the input side, the main gaps are minor — no explicit statement about the `payload`/`payload_file` mutual-exclusion interaction, which the schema already covers.

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 all five parameters are documented in the schema itself, establishing a baseline of 3. The description only touches `fields` indirectly ('Use upstream fields to bound data') and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific resource (per-organization configuration) and enumerates what it contains (`channels` the actor can view plus the `services` capability catalog). It is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it never contrasts itself with near-neighbors like get_channel/get_channels or get_operation_schema.

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 implies usage via 'One round trip for every capability domain; clients select only what they need' and 'Use upstream fields to bound data,' which hints at when the tool is appropriate. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative, so it stays at implied usage.

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