client_searchChannels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description gives no behavioral information: it does not say whether the operation is read-only, what the response looks like, whether pagination is involved, or any side effects. For a search tool, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely short ('[Client] Search channels'), which is not conciseness but under-specification. It conveys the basic action but omits crucial context. While it is front-loaded, the brevity fails to serve the agent's needs.

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?

Given that this is a search tool with nested options, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what search criteria can be used, the return format, and any limitations. It provides none of this, making it inadequate for understanding the tool's full behavior.

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 description adds no parameter explanations. The schema provides descriptions for sessionId and the nested properties of searchOptions, but the top-level searchOptions property lacks a direct description. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate for missing parameter context, but it does not.

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 'Search channels', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly indicates the tool searches for channels, but it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like client_getChannels or client_searchMessages, so it misses the full 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for searching vs listing channels, nor does it provide any context about intended use cases or comparisons with related tools.

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