afl_broadcasters_list

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds value by noting auth is not needed and specifying the exact return shape (pageInfo + content array with fields). It does not discuss pagination or restrictedCountries semantics, but the annotations reduce the burden.

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: a one-sentence purpose with examples, a return type line, and an auth line. Every part earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return format, and auth. It omits pagination behavior and the meaning of restrictedCountries, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the schema's coverage.

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% for the single parameter pageSize, which is described as 'Rows per page.' The description does not add further parameter details, but the schema already carries the meaning, so a baseline 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 'List broadcasters' with specific examples (Foxtel, Channel 7, BBC, ESPN) and shows the return structure, making it distinct from sibling tools that handle regions, channels, 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like afl_broadcast_channels or afl_broadcast_events. The description only states what it does, without any context for selection.

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