live_streams

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds the returned field list and the server-side cap on limit, but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, error behavior, or what happens if no streams are live.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the resource and return shape come first. 'Non-GraphQL REST endpoint' is the one line of marginal value to an agent, but it costs almost nothing.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return fields, and the single optional parameter is fully covered by the schema. For a simple read-only list tool this is nearly sufficient, though it omits empty-result and auth context.

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 100%, so the single limit parameter is already documented with its default and server cap. The description only restates this, adding no syntax, range, or edge-case guidance beyond 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?

Names a specific resource and scope: 'currently-open haraj live shopping streams', which is clearly distinct from siblings like fetch_feed, trending_keywords or promoted_posts. No explicit verb ('list') and no direct sibling callout, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'currently-open' qualifier implies when the data is relevant, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives for closed streams or other feed tools. The agent must infer routing entirely.

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