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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what a result contains (name, status, send stats, scheduled time), which annotations cannot convey. It stops short of noting pagination limits or auth requirements, so it is not fully rich.

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 purpose stated first, then the return payload, then the routing rule to the sibling. No sentence is redundant and nothing 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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately carries the return-value burden by naming the summary fields. Combined with the fully-covered input schema, an agent has everything needed to select and call this read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool.

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% and all three parameters (limit, offset, status) are documented in the schema itself, including ranges, defaults, and the enum. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the implicit notion of past/upcoming campaigns, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('List email broadcasts') and clarifies scope with the parenthetical '(one-time or recurring campaigns)'. It also distinguishes itself from the single-broadcast sibling by naming meisa_get_broadcast, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user asks to see their past or upcoming email campaigns') and an explicit alternative with its condition ('For full delivery statistics on one broadcast, use meisa_get_broadcast'). Both when-to-use and when-to-prefer-a-sibling are stated.

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