preview_broadcast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool does not start the broadcast, which signals a non-mutating preview operation, and describes what it evaluates: reach count and reputation gate status. This is sufficient for a simple preview tool.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The key behavioral facts are front-loaded, and every sentence contributes: one states the output, the other states the usage rule.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is complete. It tells the agent what to expect (reach count and gate result), that it is safe in the sense of not starting the broadcast, and when to invoke it. Nothing critical 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?

The schema has one unadorned 'id' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'a campaign,' which implies the id is a campaign identifier, but it never explicitly states that the id parameter refers to the campaign ID. Some meaning is added, but the description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states what the tool does: it reports how many contacts a campaign would reach and whether the reputation gate would permit sending. It also distinguishes itself from send-type tools by noting it is the only way to see campaign size 'without starting it.'

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Always run this before sending.' It also explains why this is the right tool over alternatives by stating it is the only way to see size without launching. It does not name specific alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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