live

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The single word 'live' gives no indication of whether this is a read or write operation, what data it accesses, what side effects it might have, or any performance characteristics. This is completely inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

While technically concise with a single word, this represents severe under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide any meaningful information that would help an agent understand or use the tool, making it inefficient despite its short length.

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 complexity implied by having 78 sibling tools and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. A single word provides no information about what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, or how it behaves. This fails to meet even minimal completeness standards for any non-trivial tool.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to provide parameter semantics. The baseline score for zero parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to add beyond what the schema already provides (which is complete).

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 78 sibling tools on the server, the lack of any context about appropriate use cases or distinctions from similar tools (like 'aweme' or 'detail') leaves the agent with no basis for selection.

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