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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the prerequisite that the asset already exists, but says nothing about behavior on a nonexistent or malformed id; with an output schema present, return details are handled 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses; the only minor bloat is the trailing 'that has previously been created,' which is informative but slightly redundant with 'live' in the action sense.

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?

With rich annotations, a single well-documented parameter, and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It nonetheless omits any routing cue against the many sibling asset tools and any error behavior, which an agent would want for a lookup endpoint.

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?

There is a single parameter (live_asset_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, source, or ranging detail for the id beyond what the schema states, 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?

The description states a specific verb (retrieves) and resource (details of a live video asset), which clearly conveys what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish it from close siblings like get_asset_details or filter_live_assets, leaving the agent to infer which asset type or operation applies.

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; the phrase 'that has previously been created' implies a prerequisite but names no conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools. The agent must guess the routing between this, get_asset_details, and filter_live_assets.

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