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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description corroborates 'Read-only' and adds the exact HTTP verb/path (GET /live-streams/{liveStreamId}) and a hint of response contents. It does not cover 404/error or auth behavior, but with the readOnly annotation this is reasonable.

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?

One compact sentence plus endpoint, with each clause earning its place. 'Read-only' and the endpoint are short, front-loaded, and free of filler.

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 simple single-ID GET with a readOnly annotation, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides enough: identification by id, operation type, endpoint, and key response fields. Error cases are not documented but are low-stakes for a read-only fetch.

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% and the single parameter already includes a name and example ('li400mYKSgQ6xs7taUeSaEup'). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get'), a single resource ('single live stream object'), an identifier ('by id'), and even lists contained fields (stream key, RTMP ingest, player URL). The endpoint line further disambiguates from list/analytics siblings.

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?

Clearly indicates this is for fetching one live stream when the id is known ('by id'), which contrasts usefully with list and analytics siblings. It does not explicitly say 'use list_live_streams when you don't have an id' or name alternatives, so some inference is required.

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