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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: what the subscription unlocks, how the license key is sent, the recommended polling cadence, and fail-closed behavior if the subscription lapses. These details materially help an agent understand the tool's operational context.

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 front-loaded and every clause adds useful information, but it is packed into a single dense sentence that could be easier to scan. It avoids outright waste.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema setup tool, the description covers the relevant access terms, subscription behavior, key handling, polling guidance, and failure mode. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears to be 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?

There are no input parameters to document, so the baseline is 4. The statement 'Free; no key needed' clarifies that no authentication parameter is expected, though the empty schema already makes that clear.

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 clearly states that the tool returns Coil Live connection details and enumerates the relevant content: entitlement scope, license-key transport, polling cadence, and fail-closed behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this setup tool from sibling live-data tools such as get_engine_feed or get_live_rules.

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?

It provides limited routing context by stating the tool is free and requires no license key, and by describing what a Live subscription unlocks. It does not explicitly say when to call this tool instead of the many live-tier sibling tools, or whether it should be used before them.

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