ask_stream_ask_stream_post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds that it uses SSE streaming and statute verification, but lacks details on streaming behavior (e.g., event types, connection lifecycle) that would be helpful beyond annotations.

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 includes verbose response code sections and a full JSON error schema, which may be excessive. It could be more concise while retaining key streaming and verification context. Front-loading is adequate but could be improved.

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?

Given the complexity of a streaming tool with 7 parameters (including nested objects and optional fields), the description does not explain how to handle the streaming response (e.g., event types, termination). Output schema for success is empty, leaving the agent without return structure information. Annotations provide some safety context but behavioral guidance is incomplete.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description does not add per-parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but the mention of 'statute verification' gives high-level context not in 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a streaming legal question tool with real-time token-by-token response and statute verification. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning SSE streaming, though it doesn't explicitly compare to ask_ask_post which likely is non-streaming.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this streaming tool versus siblings like ask_ask_post, ask_expert, or chat_leader. The description does not mention context or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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