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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial context not covered by annotations: the exact return fields, the polling cadence, backoff strategy, terminal-state condition, and timeout. It also clarifies the permission requirement. There is no contradiction with the 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 and then provides structured polling guidance. It is reasonably concise but contains slight redundancy between the initial polling interval sentence and the later 'Polling:' sentence, which repeats similar information (e.g., 5-10 seconds vs. at least 2 seconds, backoff to 30 seconds). Minor inefficiency but still well-organized.

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 polling-oriented tool with a terminal-state concept, the description is remarkably complete. It covers return value contents, polling intervals, backoff, timeouts, permission, and even provides an API reference link. The output schema exists, so return structure is already documented; the description fills the operational gaps.

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?

With only one parameter (broadcast_id) and 100% schema coverage, the schema already fully documents the parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Returns bounded delivery progress') on a specific resource ('broadcast send progress'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like broadcasts_get (which likely returns general broadcast details) and broadcasts_list. The additional details about rates, timing, outcome counts, and pause state further clarify the tool's niche.

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 provides explicit operational guidance: polling until terminal state, interval recommendations (5-10 seconds, back off to 30 seconds), exponential backoff, and a overall timeout of 15 minutes. It also states the required permission (broadcasts:read). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to avoid polling or use a different broadcast-related endpoint.

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