afl_broadcasters_list

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (pageInfo, content with fields), but does not specify behavioral traits like read-only nature, pagination behavior, or authentication needs.

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 short and front-loaded, but the phrasing '49: Foxtel' is ambiguous. It could be clearer about the number of broadcasters. Still, it is relatively concise.

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?

The return structure is documented, but the description omits any explanation of the pageSize parameter and does not mention pagination or any limits. For a list tool, this leaves a gap in completeness.

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 only parameter (pageSize) is not mentioned in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameter, leaving the agent uninformed about its effect.

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 tool lists broadcasters and provides examples (Foxtel, Channel 7, BBC, ESPN). It distinguishes the action and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'afl_broadcast_channels'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., afl_broadcast_channels). No context about prerequisites or limitations.

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