pl_broadcasting_events

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond these annotations by specifying the date format (ISO 8601 UTC), the auth requirement (none), and the return shape ('{pageInfo, content:[...]}'). This enhances transparency without contradicting annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: the first line states the purpose, followed by return format and auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core 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?

Given the low complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema, strong annotations), the description covers essential aspects: purpose, date format, auth, and a top-level return structure. It is slightly vague on the contents of 'match/broadcast schedule entries', but this is acceptable for a simple read-only schedule tool.

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 schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters (fromDate, toDate, pageSize). The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so it relies on the schema. The baseline score of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description offers no extra semantic detail.

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 identifies the resource as a TV/broadcast schedule for a date range, using ISO 8601 UTC. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but the noun phrase is functional and distinct from siblings like 'afl_broadcast_events' or 'pl_broadcast_match_events' by virtue of the tool name and context.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'pl_broadcast_match_events' or 'afl_broadcast_events', but no mention of how this schedule tool differs or when to prefer it. The usage context is only implied by the name and description.

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