zernio_get_broadcast_recipients

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the basic purpose and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether results are paginated, the nature of the recipients, or any side effects. The tool appears to be read-only, but no confirmation or detail is given.

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 a single clear sentence, no redundant words, and front-loads the action. Every word is necessary.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but adequate to convey primary purpose. However, it lacks context about the output format or any limitations, which would be helpful for an agent to understand what to expect.

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% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify that limit is optional or how it affects results). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters.

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 retrieves a list of recipients for a specific broadcast, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recipients'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zernio_get_broadcast (gets broadcast details) and zernio_list_broadcasts (lists all broadcasts).

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over similar tools like zernio_list_broadcasts or zernio_get_broadcast.

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