get_realtime_livestream

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-type 'get' operation, but does not state what details are returned, whether the call requires special permission, or how it behaves on invalid IDs. No side-effect or output context is provided beyond the bare operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It communicates the operation and object in minimal space. There is no fluff or unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with all parameters documented, this is minimally adequate: an agent knows which IDs are required and that details are returned. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify what 'details' include, nor does it add context about the livestream entity's relationship to related realtime tools. Slightly more output or usage context would improve completeness.

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%, and all three parameters are simple ID strings with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, but it doesn't need to because the schema already documents each parameter adequately. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb ('Get') and the specific resource ('Realtime Kit livestream details'), so an agent knows it fetches livestream details. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list_realtime_livestreams, but the singular resource and 'get' framing make the purpose reasonably distinct. Slightly generic 'details' keeps it from 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 description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_realtime_livestreams or get_realtime_session. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and schema.

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