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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the returned ids feed into project creation, and destinations must be pre-connected in the Studio with no add capability here.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and platform scope, followed by actionable usage guidance and a clear limitation. Every sentence contributes without redundancy.

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 simple read-only list tool with fully described parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough: it states what is listed, how to use the result, and the prerequisite. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently implies returned destination ids.

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 both limit and offset are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (List) and resource (streaming destinations), enumerates the supported platforms, and clarifies that destinations cannot be added from this tool. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like create_project or validate_destinations without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says to use the returned ids when creating a project and states a key prerequisite (destination must be connected in LiveReacting Studio first; you cannot add one here). It does not name alternative tools such as validate_destinations, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives guide.

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