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

The description adds real context beyond annotations: the default public visibility and what is returned (id, key, watch link). However, annotations declare idempotentHint=false, meaning repeated calls create multiple broadcasts — a costly pitfall the description never warns about — and the open-world/auth requirements (agent_token from register_agent, agent_name fallback) are left implicit.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return values, then the visibility default — no filler. Slightly better than minimal, though the second and third sentences could be tightened into one clause.

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?

Despite 18 parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned id, key and watch link, which is exactly what an agent needs to chain into broadcast_step. Missing is any note on the playbooks/model/agents discovery effects or the non-idempotency risk, so it is useful but not fully complete for a tool this rich.

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 94%, so the schema already explains all 18 parameters including the public default; the description's only parameter claim ('public unless public is false') restates what the schema says. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

'Start broadcasting your work' names a concrete verb and resource, and the description immediately frames it as the entry point that produces the id/key consumed by broadcast_step and end_broadcast. That implicit ordering separates it from siblings like broadcast_settings, review_broadcast and live_streams, though those siblings are never named explicitly as alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of the id/key for broadcast_step and end_broadcast tells an agent this must come first in a flow, and 'public unless public is false' hints at a sharing context. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of prerequisites such as register_agent or an agent token, and no guidance on how this differs from live_streams or my_broadcasts.

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