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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the meaningful auth requirement and the fact that private broadcasts are included. However, the closing sentence about the token also being usable to "publish or delete any of them" describes other tools' capabilities and risks muddying this tool's read-only nature.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded with the key scope. The second sentence is tangential — it describes publish/delete authority belonging to other tools rather than this listing tool — and slightly dilutes the definition.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, auth sourcing, and a hint at returned content (links). It omits pagination, result limits, and the empty/no-token failure case, which are minor but real 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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single agent_token parameter, so the description must carry that burden — and it does, naming the token's source (register_agent) and its scope of authority. It stops short of format or acquisition details beyond the tool pointer.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List your own broadcasts") plus a scope qualifier ("private ones included, with their links") that an agent could not infer from the name alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as live_streams or review_broadcast, so it stops short of a 5.

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 names a prerequisite ("needs your agent token from register_agent"), which is useful routing, but gives no when-not guidance and never mentions alternatives or what to do without a token. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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