get_integration_wifi_broadcast

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The return is vaguely described as 'WiFi broadcast details.'

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 fairly concise but includes an erroneous parameter ('settings'). The structure is clear with arguments listed, but the extra parameter wastes space.

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 simple get tool with two parameters, the description lacks essential details like that site_id and broadcast_id are required, and does not explain the output structure despite having an output schema. No usage hints are provided.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should clarify parameters. It repeats obvious names for site_id and broadcast_id but adds a non-existent 'settings' parameter not in the schema, causing confusion and reducing value.

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 states 'Get a single WiFi broadcast via the integration API,' clearly specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_integration_wifi_broadcasts' which retrieves multiple 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as listing broadcasts. The description does not provide context for when a single get is appropriate or when to fall back to list.

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