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

Annotations already mark it readOnly and idempotent, and the description adds valuable details beyond that: it returns specific fields, mentions that unset fields come back as null (not omitted), and explains why that matters for resuming content. This fully discloses the behavior and is consistent with the annotations.

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 is somewhat long due to the necessary enumeration of return fields, but it is front-loaded with purpose and then structured logically. The detail is warranted for the complex output; it could be tightened but is not bloated.

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 read-only reconciliation tool, the description covers all essential context: the triggering use case, the temporal/credential scope, the exact return shape (even though an output schema exists), and the null-handling behavior. An agent knows exactly what to expect and how to use it.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (invite_code and correlation_id), each with a brief description. The tool description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema provides — it only repeats 'stream key' for correlation_id. Thus the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read back'), a specific resource ('current state of a live stream you created'), and explains the purpose ('so a restarted producer can reconcile instead of starting a duplicate'). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'live_status' by scoping to streams 'created by this credential' within a 24-hour window, making the tool's role clear.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: for a restarted producer to reconcile against its own stream, and it defines a strict scope (only this credential, last 24 hours). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative tool (e.g., 'use live_status for stream status outside this scope'), so a small gap remains.

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