line_broadcast

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is partly covered, yet the description adds real value: quota consumption is one message per recipient, and the action is irreversible. It still omits rate limits or any failure behavior, but the quota and irreversibility disclosure goes meaningfully beyond the structured data.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences, with the broadcast scope and the cost/irreversibility warning both front-loaded. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 one-parameter write tool whose annotations carry the destructive/open-world profile, the description covers scope, quota cost, and irreversibility. It does not need to explain return values since there is no output schema, though the lack of any precondition detail leaves a small gap.

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?

Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the schema supplies type and length bounds but no meaning. The description says 'text message', which is a bare restatement of the name rather than adding format or content guidance.

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?

States a specific verb (Send) and resource (text message) plus the exact scope (EVERY friend of the account), which cleanly distinguishes it from line_push_text's targeted delivery. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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 'EVERY friend' scoping implies when to use this over a targeted push, but the description never names line_push_text or any alternative, nor states prerequisites such as channel access. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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