stream_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals only that a queue is involved and results are 'instant', but says nothing about latency/rate limits, whether it is stateful (a track_user_message sibling hints at per-user state), what happens on queue backpressure, or what the result actually contains.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the real-time/queue framing is front-loaded. It is efficient but thin — nothing superfluous, but also almost nothing extra.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. The agent cannot tell what the returned 'instant result' looks like (score, boolean, match list), nor how this differs from check_profanity or validate_content, which is essential for correct selection.

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 7 parameters including the language enum and leetspeak/unicode flags are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 states a verb ('add message to queue', 'get instant result') but never says what is being checked — profanity, content risk, PII, injection? Given the sibling set, an agent can guess it is a content check, but the name 'stream_check' and the description both leave the actual resource/violation type unstated. It also doesn't differentiate from check_profanity or validate_content.

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?

'Optimized for chat streams' implies a when-to-use context versus batch-oriented siblings like batch_check and stream_batch, but it is implied rather than stated. There are no explicit exclusions or conditions ('use X instead when Y'), so the routing signal is weak.

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