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

Annotations already declare the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It still adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: newest-first ordering, exclusion of running broadcasts, and the per-destination breakdown including peak viewers and error. Pagination behavior (limit/offset interaction, nextOffset) is left to the schema.

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 clauses, each load-bearing: what it returns, how to use a returned live id, and what it excludes. The scope constraint and sibling routing are front-loaded with no filler or restated name/title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and discharges it by naming the per-broadcast fields (live id, start/end, duration, peak viewers, error, per destination). Combined with the sibling routing and the 100%-covered schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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%, so limit, offset and projectId are fully documented in the schema, and the pattern for projectId is even cross-referenced to livereacting_list_projects. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or defaults, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a project's finished broadcasts') plus ordering ('newest first') and enumerates the returned fields. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like livereacting_get_stream_status and livereacting_get_stream_analytics, which it explicitly names.

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 explicit routing in both directions: finished broadcasts only, with livereacting_get_stream_analytics consuming a live id from this result, and livereacting_get_stream_status named for running broadcasts. The when-not condition ('Only finished broadcasts appear') is stated outright.

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