x_api_stream_labels_compliance

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses read-only risk, required bearer token, environment-selection via scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId, common failure conditions, and safety warnings about sensitive data. It does not describe the actual streaming semantics or the label data schema, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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 well-structured with labeled sections, making it scannable despite its length. Some redundancy exists ('Risk: read-only' followed by 'Safety warnings' that also states read-only), and the 'Use when' line is a tautology, but each section contributes useful context.

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?

The description includes an example, failure conditions, recommended tools, and response shape, which covers most operational concerns for a complex 9-parameter tool with no output schema. It falls short by not specifying the structure of the label data payload and the exact behavior of the streaming connection, which is important for consumers.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the roles of scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, credentialKey, and the formats of backfill_minutes, start_time, and end_time. However, authorizationKey and preferredAuthType are not mentioned, and constraints for time formats are minimal.

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 opens with 'Stream Post labels,' providing a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like x_api_stream_posts_compliance or x_api_stream_likes_compliance. However, it does not elaborate on what 'labels' are or how they relate to posts, and the 'Use when: Stream Post labels' line merely restates the purpose without adding clarity.

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 an explicit 'Do not use when... prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion first' exclusion, and recommends prerequisites like x_connection_info and x_auth_get_scope_credentials. It lacks a direct comparison to other streaming tools, but the resource name sufficiently differentiates them.

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