channel_livestreams

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

The description adds one key behavioral detail: 'Quota cost is 1 unit.' Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it doesn't mention other important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (especially critical with no output schema).

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 extremely concise - just two sentences that directly state the purpose and quota cost. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential 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 tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the return data looks like, how pagination works (despite having token parameters), or important behavioral constraints. The quota cost mention is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing context needed to use this tool effectively.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get live stream listing and channel details.' It specifies both the resource (live streams and channel details) and the action (get/retrieve). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'channel_videos' or 'channel_playlists' beyond the focus on live streams.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., channel_videos, channel_playlists, search), there's no indication of when this specific live stream retrieval is appropriate versus other content types or search methods.

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