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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: ordering (newest first), pagination via meta/links in the response, and a note that it mirrors GET /api/v1/streams, which helps an agent reason about parity with the REST API.

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, zero filler, with the core action and ordering front-loaded before the pagination and endpoint-parity notes. Every sentence 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?

For a simple two-param read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers ordering, pagination behavior, and response shape (meta/links), so no output schema is necessary. Minor gap: no guidance on what happens with out-of-range page values or total count, but nothing essential is missing.

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% and both parameters (page, per_page) are documented with defaults and ranges in the schema itself. The description only references pagination generically, adding nothing about parameter syntax or values beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List the streams'), plus scope ('owned by the account') and ordering ('newest first'). The resource noun cleanly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_media, list_tags, and list_folders, and from get_stream.

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 by the description's enumerative framing, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_stream or the other list_* tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites given. Minimum viable routing guidance.

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