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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: only contacts who have not received the email are sent to, so resuming never double-sends, and the paused-state requirement. This is valuable behavioral disclosure not present in structured fields.

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 short sentences, all front-loaded with the core action first, followed by the no-double-send guarantee and the state precondition. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a single-parameter action tool, the description covers action, eligibility, and the key side-effect guarantee, while annotations carry the safety profile and there is no output schema to explain. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 a single clearly documented broadcast_id parameter (UUID of the paused broadcast). The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Resume a paused broadcast') that cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like meisa_pause_broadcast and meisa_cancel_broadcast. It also states the eligibility precondition, so an agent knows exactly what state the resource must be in.

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?

Explicitly states the when-to-use condition ('Only paused broadcasts can be resumed'), which rules out resuming draft/sent broadcasts. It doesn't name alternative tools (e.g. resend_broadcast_to_non_openers) for adjacent cases, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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