afl_broadcast_region_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the return fields ('Returns: {id, name, timezone}') and explicitly stating 'Auth: none needed', which are not in the annotations or schema.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences and a return line. Every piece of information (verb, resource, return shape, auth) earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It states what is returned, mentions auth requirements, and the schema provides the parameter source. No output schema exists, but the return format is explicitly listed, covering the essential context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single parameter 'regionId' is fully documented in the input schema. The description only says 'by id', which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the semantics.

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 a specific action ('Get a single broadcast region by id') and the resource ('broadcast region'). It distinguishes itself from the list sibling tool (afl_broadcast_regions) by emphasizing 'single' and 'by id'.

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?

Clear context: it is used to fetch a specific broadcast region by its ID. The ID source is described in the schema ('from the broadcasting region list'), which implies the workflow of listing first then getting. No explicit alternatives or exclusions, but enough context for a simple get-by-id tool.

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