send_broadcast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context beyond the schema by warning about reaching 'everyone' and costing 'message quota,' which are critical behavioral traits for a broadcast tool. It does not fully detail aspects like rate limits or error handling, but provides substantial value.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that convey the purpose and critical warnings without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 complexity (a broadcast operation with cost implications), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, scope, and key warnings. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential side effects or response formats, but it is largely adequate for the context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'message' documented as 'Text message to broadcast (max 5000 chars).' The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as formatting or content guidelines, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Send a text message') and target resource ('ALL friends of this LINE OA'), distinguishing it from siblings like send_multicast or send_push_message. It precisely defines the scope and verb without being vague or tautological.

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 with the warning 'Use carefully — this reaches everyone and costs message quota,' indicating when to exercise caution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_multicast or send_push_message, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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