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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description's verb 'Get' is consistent. The description adds value by specifying that the response includes channel and send/schedule state, which is not implied by the schema or annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context about the return payload.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Get a broadcast by id' immediately conveys the core action, followed by the relevant return details. There is no redundant wording or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 read operation with one parameter, the description adequately explains what is returned (channel and send/schedule state). No output schema exists, so this explicit mention is helpful. It does not cover edge cases or error behavior, but for a basic get-by-id tool, this is sufficient. A slightly more detailed explanation of 'send or schedule state' could elevate it, but it is not essential.

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?

The input schema fully describes broadcast_id as 'The broadcast id' (100% coverage). The description does not add additional meaning to this parameter, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No further clarification is necessary for a single, self-explanatory parameter.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('a broadcast'), and identifies it by 'id'. It also clarifies what is included in the response ('channel and send or schedule state'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_broadcast_content. This clearly separates it from other retrieval tools.

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 implies its use for fetching a broadcast's details and state, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives such as get_broadcast_content or list_broadcasts. With many sibling get_* tools, some explicit guidance on selection would improve clarity, though the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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