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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates that the tool returns distinct stream qualities; it does not mention authentication, read-only behavior, rate limits, or what kind of stream context is relevant.

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 very short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. However, it is more of a fragment than a complete sentence and leaves out useful context, so it is concise but not fully well-rounded.

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?

Given the zero-parameter schema and simple list operation, the description provides the basic domain ('streams') and output type (distinct qualities), which may be minimally sufficient. But it lacks any auth expectation, use context, or relationship to the broader media/stream API, so an agent cannot fully judge when or how to invoke it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter details to document. The description still adds semantic context by clarifying that the returned values are stream qualities, which is helpful enough for a parameterless tool.

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 'Qualidades distintas dos streams' (distinct stream qualities) identifies a specific resource and the list_* verb in the tool name makes the operation clear, but it does not differentiate it from the many sibling list_* tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of siblings such as list_networks, list_languages, or list_tags. There are no exclusions or contextual cues to help an agent choose it.

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