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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the return-shape nuance that playback_urls appear for public playback ids only, but the trailing "Do not invent stream ids" is inapplicable since this tool accepts no ids — it reads like residue from a general instruction.

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?

The core statement and the omit-all-filters guidance are front-loaded and useful. The final "Do not invent stream ids" sentence does not earn its place on a zero-id, filter-only tool.

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 an output schema present, the return-field enumeration is partly redundant, but the description plus schema plus annotations leave nothing an agent needs missing for a read-only filtered list. The odd id caution is the only loose end.

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 all four filters are documented in structured fields; baseline 3 applies. The description only reinforces that all filters are optional, without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 the owner's live streams") and scopes ownership explicitly. The enumeration of returned fields and the contrast with singular get_live_stream is implicit but unmistakable given the sibling 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?

"Omit every filter to list all of the owner's streams" tells the agent the default behavior when no arguments are supplied, which is the main selection ambiguity for a filterable list tool. It stops short of naming an alternative such as get_live_stream for single-stream lookups.

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