afl_broadcast_regions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details by specifying the return structure and that authentication is not required, which goes beyond the annotation fields and helps the agent understand side effects (none) and access requirements.

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 concise: one line for the main action, one for the return shape, and one for auth. Every sentence adds value and the structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 optional pagination, the description covers the core functionality, return format, auth requirement, and the fact that there are exactly 26 regions. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit return shape. Only minor gaps exist, such as whether pageSize has a maximum or how pagination works, but the schema and pageInfo hint are sufficient.

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 input schema documents both 'page' and 'pageSize' with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 it lists broadcast regions and includes the count (26) and that each region has a timezone. The verb 'list' plus resource 'broadcast regions' distinguishes it from sibling tools like afl_broadcast_region_get (single region) and afl_broadcasters_list (broadcasters, not regions).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative exclusions are provided. However, as a list endpoint, it's implied that this is the right tool when you need all regions, while a specific region would use afl_broadcast_region_get. But this is not stated in the description, so guidance is only implied.

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