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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it merges promotion rights deals with event broadcast listings, includes provider/kind/link/worldwide row, and is series-aware so a Contender Series card uses its own deal. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The core question ('Who airs one event, country by country') is front-loaded, and every additional clause earns its place by explaining a meaningful behavioral nuance.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the main behavior, the country filtering logic, and an important series-specific edge case. It does not describe output structure, but there is no output schema and the description already gives enough to call the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value: it clarifies that the country parameter controls a market-plus-worldwide view, and it explains the series-aware behavior for the event parameter, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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: it tells you who broadcasts one event, country by country. It also differentiates itself from siblings like get_broadcast_rights by explicitly describing the merge of promotion-level rights deals with event-level confirmed listings.

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 clear usage context: pass a two-letter country code to get that market plus worldwide, or omit it for every country. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or say when not to use it, but the parameter behavior is precise enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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