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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, establishing a safe baseline. The description adds valuable context: it creates and queues a new resend, returns the new broadcast id, and has status/prerequisite constraints. However, it doesn't detail what happens to the original broadcast or potential duplicate-sending risks.

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 three compact sentences, front-loading the core action and conditions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, annotations provided), the description is complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, optional parameter guidance, and return value, enabling correct invocation.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds practical advice ('a new subject line often lifts opens') but no new syntax or semantic details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Create and queue a resend of a SENT broadcast to the contacts who received it but did not open it.' This precisely distinguishes it from siblings like meisa_duplicate_broadcast (which copies) and meisa_send_broadcast (which sends originally), leaving no ambiguity.

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 provides clear prerequisites: 'Only works on broadcasts in sent status that have at least one non-opener.' It implies when to use (to re-engage non-openers) but does not name alternatives (e.g., creating a new broadcast vs. resending).

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