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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description's 'Read-only' restates that. It adds the endpoint and account scope, but no further behavioral details such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or response shape. There is no contradiction.

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 compact, front-loads the core operation, and includes the endpoint in a single short sentence. Every phrase earns its place with no redundant 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?

Optional params are fully documented in the schema, the safety profile is covered by the readOnlyHint annotation, and the description explains scope, filters, sorting, and endpoint. A minor gap is the absence of any indication of what a successful response contains, though no output schema exists.

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 the input schema fully documents all six parameters. The description merely summarizes the filter and sorting categories without adding new parameter-level meaning, 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?

The description states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('live streams'), and an account scope, while also naming the optional filters and sorting. It is readily distinguishable from the sibling get_live_stream (plural resource vs singular) and create_live_stream.

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 implies use for collection-style listing in the account and is read-only, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool over get_live_stream or how to choose between listing and fetching a specific stream. The context is clear enough only through inference.

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