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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the consequence of active being false (sending blocked with SUBSCRIPTION_REQUIRED) and the expected next action. It also explains the structure of plans, giving the agent actionable context not available from 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 is front-loaded with the core purpose, then return structure, then usage guidance and error handling. Every sentence carries actionable information with no fluff, making it dense yet efficient.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return fields, the meaning of 'active', and the follow-up action (get_subscribe_link). It also describes plans so the agent can present pricing options. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation and use.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter detail because none exist; per the rubric, baseline for 0 params is 4. It could not add more meaning here.

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 specific action ('Check whether this workspace can send broadcasts') and explicitly differentiates from siblings by framing it as a precondition for send_broadcast. It also outlines the return fields, making the tool's function unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly says to call this before send_broadcast when real delivery is expected, and gives the alternative (get_subscribe_link) when active is false. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools.

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