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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the required permission (broadcasts:read) and the fact that it returns any broadcast state, which helps the agent set expectations.

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 two sentences: the first conveys the function and scope in a compact list of states, and the second provides permission and an API reference. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns (all broadcast states), permission requirements, and links to API docs, leaving no obvious gap.

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% for the single broadcast_id parameter, so the schema already fully documents the parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, matching the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' with a clear resource 'a broadcast' and enumerates the exact states (draft, scheduled send, active send, completed send), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like broadcasts_list and broadcasts_get_send_progress.

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 implies a clear usage context: retrieving a single broadcast by ID regardless of its current state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the scope is sufficiently clear for an agent to select it over list/progress tools.

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