x_api_stream_users_compliance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only nature, bearer token requirement, environment-selection behavior, common failure conditions, and safety warnings about sensitive data. It falls short of detailing streaming mechanics but is otherwise thorough.

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 clear labeled sections, making it easy to scan. Some redundancy ('Risk: read-only' vs 'Safety warnings: This is read-only') but no wasted sentences overall.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides extensive context: permissions, environment behavior, failure modes, response shape, and an example. The main gap is the incomplete parameter semantics, which prevents a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It covers some parameters (scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, credentialKey) with behavioral context, and lists formats for four query params, but fails to explain the semantics of partition, start_time, end_time, and omits authorizationKey and preferredAuthType entirely. This is insufficient for a 10-parameter tool.

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 Users compliance data,' a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like x_api_stream_posts_compliance and x_api_stream_likes_compliance. It unambiguously states the tool's 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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' guidance, including preferring x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion for exploration. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other compliance stream tools, so it is not a perfect 5.

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