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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the set of stream kinds returned and the migration relationship to list_profiles, which is useful, but says nothing about default filtering behavior (active-only), ordering, pagination, or result shape — all of which an agent needs to interpret the output.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action first, the filter hint second, and the sibling/migration note last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough to select and call it correctly. The remaining gap is return semantics — whether results are grouped, ordered, or truncated — which matters for a list endpoint but is a modest omission.

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% and both parameters are documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the `type` filter and lists values that already appear in the enum, adding no syntax, default, or interaction detail for `include_inactive` beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all research streams for the authenticated user') and then enumerates the concrete stream types returned (external profiles, companies, topics, hiring signals, ad watches, own_profile). This clearly separates it from feed-level siblings like get_stream_feed and mutation siblings like create_stream/pause_stream.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this instead of list_profiles for the streams-first model, while noting list_profiles still works for V1 callers, and points to `type` for filtering. It doesn't cover when to prefer get_stream_feed or how include_inactive should drive a decision, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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