afl_live_audio

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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond the annotations: empty when no game is live, return structure with pageInfo and content containing id/name/channels, and no auth needed. This complements the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations without contradiction.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by return format and auth. It avoids unnecessary detail, though the 'Also answers this: openf1_team_radio' line is an odd addition that somewhat disrupts the clean structure.

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 read-only list tool, the description provides essential context: live-only availability, empty result condition, return shape, and auth requirements. It doesn't explain the channels array contents, but the schema and return structure make it largely self-explanatory.

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 covers all three parameters (round, pageSize, compseason) with 100% description coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema.

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 identifies the tool as providing live AFL audio streams and notes that it returns empty when no game is live. This distinguishes it from siblings like afl_live_video (video vs audio), though it lacks an explicit verb and the 'Also answers this: openf1_team_radio' note adds a confusing cross-domain capability.

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: it's for live AFL audio, with the caveat that it's empty when no game is live. However, there is no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance, and the note about openf1_team_radio is a routing hint rather than a clear usage policy.

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