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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by listing exactly what is checked (subscriber estimate, provider capacity, etc.) and mentions the required permission and API reference, providing helpful context beyond 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?

Two concise sentences cover the tool's purpose and optionality, plus permission and API reference. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded with the core diagnostic function.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately covers the tool's scope, optional nature, and what is inspected, making it complete for a simple read-only diagnostic tool.

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?

There is one parameter (broadcast_id) with full schema coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's 'The broadcast identifier.' Since schema coverage is 100%, a 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 title and description clearly state that this tool inspects broadcast readiness by checking subscriber estimate, provider capacity, sender setup, event tracking, and blocking issues. It is distinct from sibling broadcast tools (e.g., broadcasts_send, broadcasts_schedule) and other preflight tools (e.g., automations_preflight).

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 explicitly says the tool is optional ('not required before starting a durable send'), indicating when it's appropriate to use. However, it does not specify scenarios where it should be skipped or mention alternative tools for similar purposes.

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