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

Even with annotations already marking readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds meaningful behavior: it discloses the exact return shape ({ ready, checklist, summary }), the checklist item fields, and the consequence of ignoring readiness ('would fail or, worse, not be delivered'). This goes well beyond annotation basics.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: purpose, output schema, checklist schema, when to call, and what to do conditionally. It is front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into usage details, with no filler.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the result structure, how to interpret checklist items, and the correct agent action when ready is false. An agent has everything required to invoke and act on the tool without external knowledge.

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 description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is a 4 rather than a 5 because the description adds no parameter-specific value, but none is needed.

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 verb and resource: 'Check whether this workspace is set up to send real broadcasts, and what is still missing.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from readiness-adjacent siblings like whatsapp_status or billing_status by focusing on overall broadcast setup readiness.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this FIRST whenever a user asks to send or schedule a campaign on a new or unfamiliar workspace.' It also names an alternative tool (send_broadcast) and states the condition for not using it ('if ready is false, do NOT attempt send_broadcast'), which is strong when-to-use guidance.

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