channel_livestreams_via_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Quota cost is 2 unit' and notes additional costs for some parameters, which is useful for resource management. However, it fails to describe critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like, or any error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the purpose and quota cost without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded with the core function, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes. Overall, it's concise and to the point.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral traits beyond quota costs. For a tool that likely returns structured data like livestreams and channel details, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value by noting quota costs for 'forUsername' and 'local', but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 livestreams listing along with channel details.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('livestreams listing' and 'channel details'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'channel_livestreams' or 'channel_videos', which is why it doesn't achieve a perfect score.

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. It mentions quota costs but doesn't explain why one would choose this over similar tools like 'channel_livestreams' or how it differs in functionality. Without such context, the agent lacks clear usage directives.

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