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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so the safety profile is covered upstream. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot: content is free, licensed cleared_with_attribution, requires the 'Curated by cev-os TRIPWIRE' credit, and streams are the broadcasters' own served under their terms. These are real constraints on downstream use that an agent would otherwise not know.

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 usage trigger is front-loaded in the first clause, and the remaining licensing/attribution text is terse and factual rather than padded. It is a single dense paragraph with no repeated information.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what you get back (official live video links/embed URLs), when to call it, and the licensing constraints on the result. Only the exact response shape (list vs. single object for INTL) is left implicit, which is a minor gap.

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%, with both country (ISO alpha-2 or INTL) and embed_only documented in the schema itself. The description alludes to country vs. international scope but adds no syntax, defaults, or semantics beyond what the schema already states, 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?

The description names a specific resource (links to official live news video, i.e. YouTube embed URLs or the broadcaster's own page) and the scope (a country or international wires), which is far more specific than the title. It doesn't need to differentiate from siblings like get_catalysts or get_macro_calendar since those are unrelated domains, but it also adds no explicit boundary against similar media tools.

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?

"Use this when you need links to official live news video ... for a country or for international wires" gives a clear trigger condition and names both supported scopes. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, but for this tool none plausibly exist among the siblings.

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