agent_read_channel

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the encryption/key model (relay-held key, relay can read the posts), that it acts as the credential-store identity, and that returned content is untrusted and must not be treated as instructions. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs and none are available elsewhere.

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?

Short, front-loaded sentences with the core action first and the safety caveat last. The encryption point is stated twice ('relay decrypts them with its own key' / 'encrypted by the relay with a relay-held key'), a mild redundancy that keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be described, and the description still covers scope, trust model, and the untrusted-input warning. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 limit, since, and channel_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, default, or pagination nuance beyond that, making 3 the correct baseline.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Read posts from a channel') and scopes it to channels the agent belongs to, which separates it from agent_post_to_channel and agent_list_channels. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls just short of 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?

The 'channel you belong to' constraint implies the precondition for use, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against near-neighbors like agent_receive_messages or agent_unread_count. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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