afl_live_video

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses that no authentication is needed, returns empty when no game is live, and provides the exact return structure. These are valuable behavioral facts not covered by annotations or 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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by return structure, auth, and sibling alternatives. Every sentence adds value and there is no wasted text.

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 tool with well-documented parameters, the description covers all essential context: return shape, auth, empty behavior, and related tools. It is complete without needing an output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter names and descriptions for round, pageSize, and compseason. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 provides live AFL video streams, with the key behavior of returning empty when no game is live. It distinguishes itself from siblings like afl_live_audio by specifying video, and it even names alternative tools it can answer for (cricketaustralia_streams, entain_video_channels, pointsbet_inplay_streaming).

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (needing live AFL video streams) and notes the 'Also answers this' alternatives, which helps route mental queries. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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