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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds the REST endpoint equivalence (GET /api/v1/streams/{stream}) and the set of fields returned, which is modest supplementary context but discloses no error behavior, auth requirements, or lookup-failure semantics.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the action and identifier, then lists the payload contents before the endpoint mapping. No filler or redundancy; every clause carries information.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the fields the response carries (settings, status, tags, destinations), and the annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile. For a one-parameter read tool this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 parameter is documented as 'Stream UUID.' The description reinforces the UUID-based lookup, adding a little meaning over the schema, but contributes no format, validation, or sourcing details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Get one stream by UUID') and enumerates the returned fields (settings, status, tags, destinations), so the agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It does not explicitly name the contrasting sibling (list_streams, get_stream_queue), but 'one stream by UUID' implicitly distinguishes it from listing 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?

Usage is implied: use it when you have a single stream UUID and need its details, rather than list_streams for enumeration. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not name alternatives such as get_stream_queue, so the agent must infer the routing decision.

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