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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety bar is covered. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context: it does not remove access denials or CORS requirements, does not fetch origin, and does not write to D1. This meaningfully sets agent expectations beyond the annotations.

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 dense and front-loads what it returns, but it spends sentences on UI details (the legacy_url button, the isolated page accepting lang/theme) that do not correspond to tool parameters, diluting the useful content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract; it names the returned items (official site, stream URL, legacy player) but not their format or shape. Combined with the page-oriented lang/theme detail, this leaves an agent with an approximate rather than precise picture.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema documents it fully and the baseline is 3. The description does not add syntax or format detail for 'id'; instead it describes lang/theme options that belong to a target web page rather than the tool's inputs, which is mildly confusing rather than helpful.

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 resource and scope: public metadata for a stream, including the official channel site, a copyable stream URL, and the legacy HTTP player. An agent can tell this is a metadata read for a given stream. It stops short of naming how it differs from siblings like get_channel, so it's clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative tools named. The statements 'não busca origem' and 'uma leitura indexada' imply scope (metadata-only, no origin fetch), but the agent is left to infer when this tool is preferred over get_channel or the stream-URL siblings.

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