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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' is largely redundant reinforcement. It does add useful context by naming the returned content and the underlying endpoint GET /live-streams/{liveStreamId}, which confirms a non-mutating fetch, but adds nothing about error behavior or whether a missing id returns null vs error.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource in one sentence, followed by two short fragments. Slightly padded by the redundant 'Read-only' and the raw endpoint spec, but overall tight and scannable.

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 trivial one-parameter read with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, id-based retrieval, and highlights the meaningful returned fields, which compensates for the absent output schema. It is adequate, though it omits what happens on a bad or unknown id.

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% and the single liveStreamId parameter is fully documented with a format example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates 'by id' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, matching the baseline.

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+resource ('Get a single live stream object by id'), and the word 'single' implicitly contrasts with the sibling apivideo_list_live_streams. It also names the concrete fields returned (stream key, RTMP ingest, player URL), so the agent knows exactly what this retrieves.

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 phrase 'by id' implies the lookup-by-identifier use case versus listing, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over apivideo_get_live_stream_analytics or apivideo_list_live_streams. Usage must be inferred from the name and scope.

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