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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds important context beyond annotations: credential-scoped results, a 24-hour retention window, null rather than omitted fields, and the ability to resume a stream without re-sending content. These details help an agent understand both result shape and reconciliation behavior.

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 front-loaded with purpose and constraints, which is good structure. However, it spends a long sentence enumerating return fields even though an output schema exists, making that portion less concise than necessary. The null-behavior sentence earns its place, but the field list is largely redundant.

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?

Given an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description provides everything an agent needs: purpose, scope limits, retention window, return null semantics, and recovery intent. No critical operational context is missing for a read-only status lookup.

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 invite_code and correlation_id are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema provides. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, a baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource: read back the current state of a live stream you created. It also defines scope precisely by saying only streams started by this credential within the last 24 hours are returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling live_status by name, so it is clear but lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 clearly states the use case: allowing a restarted producer to reconcile instead of starting a duplicate. The 24-hour and credential constraints implicitly tell the agent when this tool will and will not return useful data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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