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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: 'Free; no key needed' discloses auth requirements and the plan-gating of results ('what each plan gets'). It does not, however, explain anything about freshness, rate limits, or how the endpoint data is scoped.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The feature enumeration in sentence one is the only questionable content, but it is brief and frames the product scope before the payoff line.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. For a zero-param info tool the description is largely sufficient; the remaining gap is the absence of any routing hint toward live_status, live_kill, or the approval/gateway/room tools listed as neighbours.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is trivially 100% and the description makes no misleading claims about inputs.

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 second sentence states the concrete deliverable: 'Returns the endpoints, channels, frames and what each plan gets.' That is a clear read of what live_info produces, distinguishable from the action-oriented siblings live_kill/live_resume. However, the opening sentence is a feature catalogue of the whole Privi Live product rather than this tool's purpose, so it never explicitly separates itself from live_status or gateway_info.

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 guidance and no named alternative (live_status, live_kill, ledger_list_streams) that an agent should consider instead. 'Free; no key needed' hints at a prerequisite, but not at the selection conditions between this discovery tool and the status/control siblings.

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