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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses the tool returns buffer depth in seconds, transport kind, and uptime counts. It clarifies it does not return standing latency or predictions, and mentions pricing ($0.25). However, it is verbose and includes tangential benchmarking data that may distract.

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 description front-loads the core purpose but then includes tangential details like Icecast vs HLS buffer depth comparison and additional context. While informative, it is longer than necessary for tool invocation, reducing conciseness.

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?

The description explains what is returned (per-feed buffer depth, transport kind, uptime counts) and what is not, compensating for the lack of output schema. However, the payment_signature parameter is not explained, leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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 only parameter, 'payment_signature', is not described in the input schema (0% coverage) and the description does not explain its purpose or usage. While price is mentioned, the parameter remains undefined, which is a significant gap for low schema coverage.

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 description clearly states the tool broadcasts a 'feed buffer-depth map and source health', specifying it returns per-feed buffer depth, transport kind, and uptime counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sygnl47_events and sygnl47_entities by focusing on buffer depth measurement.

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?

The description explicitly states what the tool returns (buffer depth, not standing latency) and what it does not (per-feed lag figure, prediction). It explains when not to use it for latency and mentions the cross-feed correlation is below threshold, providing clear guidance on appropriate use.

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