search_channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the openLive flag in results, but does not cover pagination, matching behavior (partial/exact), rate limits, or error handling. The agent lacks key behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose directly, and the second provides actionable guidance (openLive flag and combination with other tools). Extremely concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description partially explains the return (includes openLive flag) but omits full response structure, order, or list vs. single result. With sibling tools like get_channel, the behavior is not fully specified, leaving gaps for the agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (keyword and size). The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 tool searches Chzzk channels by channel name, with a specific verb (search) and resource (channels). It adds context by mentioning looking up a specific streamer by handle, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_channel, which also looks up channels.

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 gives a clear use case (look up a specific streamer by handle) and hints at combining with other tools for live info. However, it does not specify when not to use it or provide alternatives to distinguish from search_lives or get_channel, leaving room for confusion.

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