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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by stating the required permission and pagination behavior. For a read-only list operation, this is sufficient. No contradiction with 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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds unique information (function, permission, pagination, link). No wasted words.

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 the simplicity of the tool (list operation with 3 parameters, output schema present, annotations covering safety), the description covers purpose, permission, and pagination. It could mention result format briefly, but the output schema handles that. Fairly complete.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents the three parameters (limit, search, starting_after). The description adds no additional parameter-level details, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra value.

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 what the tool does: 'Returns broadcast drafts, scheduled sends, active sends, and completed sends.' It uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('broadcasts'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like broadcasts_get or broadcasts_cancel.

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 mentions required permission ('broadcasts:read') and pagination guidance ('use bounded pages and returned cursors'), which helps usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., broadcasts_get for single item) or provide when-not-to-use advice.

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