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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information beyond that: sort order ('newest first'), pagination behavior, and that the response carries meta/links — details an agent would otherwise have to discover empirically.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by response/pagination behavior and the underlying endpoint. Every sentence carries information an agent or developer can act on; nothing is padding.

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 usefully compensates by noting that meta/links pagination data is returned. For a zero-required-parameter list tool this is close to complete; the only notable omission is routing guidance relative to the many list_*/get_*/show_* siblings.

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%, with both page and per_page documented including ranges and defaults, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only implies pagination semantics ('paginated', meta/links) without adding syntax or format detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('List the streams') plus scope ('owned by the account') and ordering ('newest first'), which is more than a bare restatement. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_stream or show_streams, which an agent could reasonably confuse with this one.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'owned by the account' implicitly scopes the tool, but nothing tells the agent when to prefer list_streams over get_stream, show_streams, or the other list_* siblings, and no prerequisites are stated.

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