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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: results are newest-first and a channel with no history returns an empty list rather than erroring. The notable gap is pagination/limit and how far back 'recent' reaches — important for a history-list endpoint that an agent may otherwise assume is complete.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler; the ordering and empty-list facts are placed where they matter. The long field enumeration in sentence one is somewhat redundant with the output schema and makes the description denser than it needs to be.

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?

With an output schema present, return values did not need spelling out, and the description still covers ordering and the empty-result case, so an agent can call it correctly. What is missing for a paginated history listing is any statement of page size, limits, or history depth.

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 slug parameter already documents the kick.com/{slug} form and case-insensitivity, so the description correctly does not repeat it. It also adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case for a single well-documented parameter.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'List a Kick channel's recent broadcast history', with ordering ('newest first') and the exact fields returned. It is nearly self-distinguishing from kick_livestreams and kick_channel_videos, but it never names those siblings, and 'broadcast history' vs 'videos' is a real ambiguity an agent must resolve on its own.

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?

Provides a concrete use case — 'see how often and how long a streamer broadcasts and how large the audience was' — which tells the agent what question this tool answers. It stops short of exclusions or alternatives (e.g., use kick_livestreams for currently-live status, kick_channel_videos for VODs), so routing between the closely related Kick channel tools is left to inference.

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