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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: scenes are omitted by default and that omission exists because scene lists can be long, which explains the default rather than merely restating it.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the use case, then the parameter caveat. The field enumeration is long but it is load-bearing given there is no output schema; nothing is obviously redundant.

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 no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing return values and does so by naming the returned fields. Combined with the default-omission behavior and the sibling routing for scenes, an agent has everything needed to 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 coverage is 100% and every parameter already carries its own description, so the baseline is 3. The description largely mirrors the schema ('prefer livereacting_get_scenes, which pages'; 'off by default') and only adds the 'scenes can be long' rationale, which is marginal.

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?

Specific verb (read) plus resource (one project) with an enumeration of exactly what comes back: name, video format, audio quality, duration, destinations, stream status, pending schedule count. This distinguishes it from livereacting_list_projects (plural) and from livereacting_get_scenes (explicitly routed away).

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 concrete use case ('check a project is set up the way the customer expects before starting a stream') and names the alternative for scene data (livereacting_get_scenes, which pages). It does not address overlap with livereacting_get_stream_status for the 'current stream status' field it advertises, so the routing guidance is not complete.

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