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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: fire-and-forget dispatch, asynchronous post collection, one-page-upfront credit settlement, and early-stop runs costing less. It does not cover idempotency (does running twice double-charge?), permission requirements, or rate limits — meaningful gaps for a credit-consuming mutation, but the billing transparency is unusually strong.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then cost model, then prerequisite, then follow-up. Five sentences, each carrying distinct information; the billing nuance is the longest but is genuinely non-obvious and worth the words.

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 4-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, it covers behavior, cost, prerequisites and where to look afterward. The remaining gap is what the dispatch response actually contains and whether repeated invocations stack, but an agent can call this 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains resume, max_pages and history_days in depth, including their interaction. The description's billing sentence reinforces max_pages but adds no new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and a distinguishing scope: 'Trigger an immediate run of an active stream, bypassing its schedule.' That separates it cleanly from pause_stream, resume_stream and create_stream without needing to name them.

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?

Gives a hard prerequisite ('Paused streams must be resumed first') and a follow-up path ('Use list_streams or get_stream_feed to see results once the run completes'). It stops short of saying when to use this instead of just letting the schedule fire, but the context is clear.

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