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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: results are ordered newest-first and include broadcasts created via either the dashboard or the API, which the agent could not infer otherwise.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the key scoping facts are front-loaded. Minor deduction for restating the title verbatim in the first line before adding new information.

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 read-only, cursor-paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering, scope and source, while pagination and error semantics live in the schema. What 'each with its counts' actually returns is left vague, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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 coverage is 75%, with limit, cursor and agent_id all well documented in the schema itself. The description only touches `status` ('narrows the list'), adding marginal meaning to an enum that has no schema description, so it does not materially extend the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (an agent's broadcasts) with scope, ordering ('newest first'), and origin ('sent from the dashboard or the API'). It implicitly separates from get_broadcast (singular retrieval) via the plural framing, but never names or contrasts a sibling 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?

Usage is implied by the tool's name and the note that '`status` narrows the list', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_broadcast or list_broadcast_recipients, and no stated prerequisites.

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