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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral signals: output is live/streaming rather than a one-shot fetch, and the tool is explicitly undocumented and unstable. It does not describe stream termination, blocking behavior, or error handling, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the stability caveat. Nothing is wasted and no filler is present.

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 streaming tool this is somewhat thin: it does not explain how the stream is consumed or terminated, and there is no output schema to compensate. Annotations cover the safety profile and the single parameter is fully documented, so it is minimally adequate but leaves the streaming semantics under-specified.

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 coverage is 100% and the single jobId parameter is documented as 'The running job ID' in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stream live output') scoped to a 'running HyperExecute job'. The words 'live' and 'running' naturally distinguish it from siblings like getHyperExecuteJobInfo or getHyperExecuteStageLogs, though it stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives.

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 when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The only caveat, 'may change without notice,' is a stability warning rather than usage direction, so the agent must infer when a live stream is preferable to the batch log tools.

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