x_api_stream_likes_compliance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: risk level ('read-only'), environment-selection behavior for scopes/credentials, expected response shape, common failure conditions, and safety warnings about sensitive data. It goes beyond the structured data by explaining how Vault/Postgres principal resolution works and what response structure to expect. This is exemplary transparency for a complex API tool.

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 structured with labeled sections, making it scannable and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each section is concise, though the 'Use when' line is redundant with the first sentence. Overall, it packs substantial information into a readable format without excessive wordiness.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers a wide range of context: purpose, auth requirements, environment selection, response shape, failure conditions, safety, and an example. The primary gap is incomplete parameter semantics, but the breadth of behavioral and environment context compensates for much of the missing detail. It is a thorough description that would enable an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 description explicitly documents only 3 of 9 parameters (backfill_minutes, start_time, end_time) and mentions scope/credential behavior in prose, but leaves authorizationKey and preferredAuthType unexplained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics, leaving the agent with incomplete knowledge for critical auth-related fields. The environment-selection section adds some context but is not a substitute for per-parameter documentation.

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 Likes compliance data,' a specific verb+resource that clearly names the tool's function. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from similar streaming tools like firehose/sample variants, but the compliance term and tool name provide enough differentiation. The purpose is clear and actionable.

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 provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections, including a preference for exploration tools like x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion. It also lists recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools, giving the agent a clear workflow context. However, it doesn't compare directly to sibling streaming tools, leaving some ambiguity about when compliance streaming is preferred over firehose/sample.

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