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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the payload contents (costs, funnel, blocking reason), but it says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid broadcast_id, whether archived broadcasts are visible, or permission requirements — gaps that matter for a lookup that can fail.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the object and scope, followed by the field inventory. Every clause carries information and there is no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration is exactly what an agent needs to know what comes back, and the read-only annotation covers the safety profile. What is missing is failure/permission behavior and a pointer to the sibling for report-style analytics, so it falls just short of fully complete.

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 100%, with broadcast_id documented as a 'broadcast UUID' and the purpose field carrying its own long explanation, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond it — no note on where to obtain the UUID (e.g., from list_broadcasts) or expected format.

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 names a specific resource and scope ('One broadcast's full detail') and enumerates the returned facets: config, contact funnel, AI/telco costs, total contacts, next dial time, blocking reason, seat usage. This clearly separates it from the mutation siblings (create_broadcast, pause_broadcast). It stops short of explicitly distinguishing it from list_broadcasts or get_broadcast_report, which share the same resource.

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 only implied: 'one broadcast's implies a single-record lookup keyed by broadcast_id, versus list_broadcasts for many. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_broadcast_report, which looks like the closest alternative for analytics, leaving the agent to guess.

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