afl_keyserver_url_signing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable context beyond that: it mentions the return value {signedUrl}, potential 401 error for anonymous tokens, and explicitly states 'Auth: none needed.' This clearly discloses behavioral traits and failure modes.

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 with the core purpose and includes useful return/auth info, but the line 'Also answers this: ...' is cryptic and not immediately clear, reducing overall conciseness. It could be tightened by removing or explaining that note.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main functionality, return value, auth requirements, and an error case. It is mostly complete, though it could benefit from explicit guidance on when to use it instead of sibling streaming tools.

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 input schema already fully describes the single 'url' parameter as 'The unsigned HLS .m3u8 URL to sign.' The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'AFL HLS video URL'), so it does not significantly improve parameter semantics beyond the schema baseline.

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 action ('Sign an AFL HLS video URL for playback') and the resource (AFL HLS video URL), with a specific result (token-signed CDN URL). This distinguishes it from sibling streaming tools by focusing on the URL signing function.

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?

Usage is implied: use when an unsigned HLS URL needs signing for playback. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, and the line 'Also answers this: cricketaustralia_streams, entain_video_channels, pointsbet_inplay_streaming' is vague and does not clarify selection criteria.

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