get_channel_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the endpoint may return 403 or 422 under certain token permissions, identifies the underlying API (GET /v1/channels/{channel_id}), and lists the response fields. It implies a read-only operation via '查詢', though it does not explicitly state side-effect absence or rate limits. This is solid but not exhaustive.

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 is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, note, API, return structure) and is front-loaded with the main action. No redundant sentences; each section adds valuable information without unnecessary length.

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 simple get-detail tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides everything needed: the action, usage scenario, potential errors, actual API endpoint, and return fields. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the response 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 coverage is 100%: the channel_id parameter already has a clear description ('銷售渠道 ID（由 list_channels 回傳的 id 欄位取得）'). The tool description adds little beyond this, essentially just mentioning the parameter in context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the purpose: '取得指定銷售渠道的詳細資訊' (get detailed info for a specified sales channel), and the usage section specifies it queries a single channel's complete settings including type, status, and link config. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_channels (listing) and get_channel_comparison (comparison) by emphasizing the singular scope.

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 usage section says '查詢單一銷售渠道的完整設定...適合確認特定渠道的詳細配置', giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5. The note about token permissions adds a caution but not an explicit alternative.

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