afl_broadcast_events

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the return shape ('{pageInfo, content:[...]}'), states 'Auth: none needed', and clarifies the data granularity ('one entry per match per channel'). The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them. The main gap is a lack of mention of pagination behavior or filtering semantics, but the provided details are sufficient to earn a 4.

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 compact, with four short, informative sentences. It front-loads the core purpose ('Broadcast schedule') and then provides return format, auth, and alternative tool mentions. The 'Also answers this' line is somewhat cryptic but not verbose. Every sentence earns its place, though the phrasing could be clearer, preventing a perfect score.

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 listing tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good amount of context: purpose, return shape, auth, and alternative tool mapping. The annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior, reducing the burden. However, it lacks explanation of how parameters like round/date range interact, how pagination works (pageSize), or when to use this vs. afl_broadcast_event_get. These gaps prevent a 5, but it is reasonably complete for an agent to make an initial selection.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning about parameters; it only mentions the return format and general scope. Since every parameter already has a clear schema description (round, toDate, fromDate, pageSize, compseason), the tool description compensates adequately without needing additional parameter explanation.

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 'Broadcast schedule' which clearly identifies this as a listing tool for broadcast events, and the phrase 'one entry per match per channel' adds specific scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like afl_broadcast_event_get by implying a collection endpoint vs. a single event. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', making it slightly less direct than the ideal.

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 line 'Also answers this: espn_core_call, pl_broadcasting_events, pl_broadcast_match_events' provides some alternative tool guidance, hinting that this tool can serve the same purpose as those. However, it does not clearly state when to prefer this tool over others, nor does it mention exclusions like using afl_broadcast_event_get for a single event. The guidance is cryptic and lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use framing.

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