list_broadcast_recipients

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only states the result content. It does not mention pagination, ordering, response shape, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation beyond what is implied by 'list' in the name.

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 very short with no filler, and the core output concept is front-loaded. However, it is concise to the point of being under-specified, so it does not fully earn its place by enabling correct tool invocation.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented parameters, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool reliably. It provides the basic idea but omits necessary details about parameters and result structure.

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 0%, and the description adds almost no parameter clarity. The 'campaign' phrasing hints that 'id' references a broadcast, but the required 'id' parameter and the optional 'limit' parameter are never explained.

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 clearly conveys the tool's output: recipients of a campaign and message-level outcomes. It distinguishes the resource ('campaign' / recipients) from sibling tools like list_broadcasts, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_broadcasts, preview_broadcast, or list_threads. The intended use case must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the one-line description.

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