Streams Describe Stream

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The mention of stale status adds a bit of domain context, but nothing is said about permissions, behavior when the stream doesn't exist, or that omitted database/schema fall back to the current context. With a full output schema present, return content did not need restating.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Nothing is padded and the operational content comes first.

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?

Complexity is low, annotations cover the safety profile, the schema fully documents parameters, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. What's missing is only the surrounding workflow context — that the stream must exist and how names are discovered — which is a minor gap for a simple describe tool.

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 all three parameters (including the quoting/uppercase convention) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb (Describe) with a specific resource (a stream) and enumerates the returned facets: metadata, source table, and stale status. An agent can distinguish it from streams_list_streams or streams_drop_stream by the verb alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named (e.g., 'call streams_list_streams first to find the name' or 'use streams_read_stream_changes to consume data'). Usage is only implied by the describe-vs-list naming convention.

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