afl_broadcast_channels

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds valuable context by stating 'Auth: none needed' and specifying the exact return structure, which goes beyond the provided annotations. It does not mention pagination behavior or rate limits, but the added context is substantial.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence for purpose, one for return format, and one for auth. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes only essential information, with clear line breaks separating sections for readability.

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 simple list tool with two pagination parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: purpose, return structure, and authentication. The schema and annotations fill in most remaining gaps, making the description sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 both parameters (page and pageSize) having descriptive details. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'broadcast channels', with additional details about media types (VIDEO/AUDIO/TEXT) and the count of 272. This unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from related broadcast tools such as regions or events.

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 purpose is stated clearly enough that usage is implied (to list broadcast channels). However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools or any exclusions, leaving room for ambiguity in edge cases.

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