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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that: the eligibility window (drafts/future-scheduled only) and the `full_access` API key requirement, both of which the annotations cannot express. It stops short of 5 because it does not say whether deletion is permanent or recoverable.

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 tight sentences with the operation named first, the precondition second, and auth/endpoint metadata last. No filler, and nothing important is buried.

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 destructive single-parameter tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what is deleted, which objects are eligible, and the required key scope. The remaining gap is outcome semantics — whether the deletion is reversible and whether recipients or analytics are affected.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single `id` parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so only indirectly via the endpoint template `DELETE /broadcasts/{id}`, which implies the id is a broadcast identifier matching the uuid format, but it adds no further constraints such as whether a draft vs. scheduled id behaves differently.

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 ('Delete a broadcast') that is unambiguously distinct from send_broadcast, update_broadcast, and cancel_email. It does not name a sibling or contrast with one, so it stops short of the top tier, but an agent can identify the operation immediately.

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?

Gives a concrete applicability constraint: only drafts and broadcasts scheduled in the future may be deleted, which implicitly excludes already-sent or in-flight broadcasts. It does not, however, point to an alternative (e.g. cancel_email for stopping a scheduled send), so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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