send_broadcast_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'sends' but does not mention any side effects, such as whether the message is irreversible, whether any permissions are required, or whether delivery is immediate. This is a mutation tool with no extra transparency, similar to the 'update_drive' example.

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, concise sentence with no redundant phrases. It directly states the core functionality without any fluff, earning the highest score for efficiency.

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?

This is a simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, so the essential behavior is conveyed adequately. However, the lack of usage guidance and behavioral transparency makes it only minimally complete. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., the broadcast list must exist) or what the response will be, which would be valuable 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 fully documents both parameters ('text' and 'list_id') with brief descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already provides adequate semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Sends a message to all members of a broadcast list' clearly identifies the action (send), the resource (broadcast list), and the scope (all members). It is distinct from the sibling 'send_message' by specifying the broadcast list audience, though it does not explicitly contrast with that alternative.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives like 'send_message' or 'create_broadcast'. It neither states explicit conditions nor gives any contextual hints about suitable scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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