Validar un broadcast sin mandarlo

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description reinforces safety by stating 'NO envía nada' and details validation side effects. It adds context beyond annotations: what is checked (phones, variables, template status) and cost reporting.

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 paragraph with clear information, front-loading the main action. It could be slightly shorter, but every sentence adds value. No redundant words.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters with low schema coverage, nested objects, and no output schema. The description covers validation logic and cost reporting but does not explain the return structure or detail how the report is formatted. It is partially complete but lacking output details.

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 20% of parameters have a description in the schema (idempotencyKey). The description does not explain the meaning of required parameters like template, recipients, language, or templateVariables. It mentions 'payload' but does not map to individual fields.

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 validates a broadcast payload without sending, listing specific validations (duplicate/malformed phones, missing variables, template status) and cost reporting. It distinguishes from siblings like hilo_send_broadcast and hilo_validate_send by emphasizing 'NO envía nada'.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Corre esto antes de cualquier envío masivo', indicating when to use. Contrasts with actual sending by stating 'NO envía nada', implying the correct alternative is to use this for check and then the send tool.

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