downloadstream

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 vaguely mentions 'stream or download' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what the output format is, whether it involves data transfer costs, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely handles media streaming/downloading.

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 overly concise to the point of being under-specified—'Stream or download info' is a single vague phrase that doesn't earn its place by providing useful context. It lacks structure and fails to front-load critical 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?

Given the complexity of a streaming/download tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'info' is returned, how streaming vs. downloading is determined, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance for proper 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (id, cgeo, lang) thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or affect behavior, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Stream or download info' is vague and tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'downloadstream' without specifying what resource it operates on. It mentions 'info' but doesn't clarify if this refers to metadata, video content, or something else, failing to provide a clear verb+resource combination.

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?

There are no usage guidelines in the description—it doesn't indicate when to use this tool, any prerequisites, or alternatives. With no sibling tools, this isn't a major issue, but the description offers no contextual guidance for the agent.

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