getAudiencesByAudienceIdBroadcasts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature (GET method) and a specific rate limit of 100 requests per minute, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention pagination, error responses, or what happens if the audienceId is invalid, leaving some transparency gaps for a listing tool.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. It adds only relevant metadata (rate limit and read-only) without unnecessary verbosity, making it efficient and well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description includes the rate limit and read-only policy but omits whether the response is paginated or the shape of the broadcast objects. For a listing endpoint, pagination behavior is commonly important to know, but the description does not address it. The provided context is adequate for a simple call but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The only parameter, audienceId, is not described in the schema, and the description only implicitly references it via 'for an audience' without explaining its format, required shape, or any constraints. This is minimal added meaning and does not fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('List broadcasts') and the resource ('for an audience'), matching the tool name precisely. It distinguishes this tool from the many sibling list/get tools by specifying the audience-scoped broadcasts, so an agent can recognize its specific function without ambiguity.

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 clear context: it's read-only and for listing broadcasts of a specific audience. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous and no sibling tool overlaps directly. A short exclusion note would earn a 5, but the current clarity is sufficient.

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