get_broadcast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves details and stats (implying read-only behavior) and describes the return format ('shaped broadcast'), but lacks information on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. It adds some behavioral context but not comprehensively.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage guidelines, return details, and an example—all in four concise sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence adds specific value, making it highly efficient.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage, returns, and includes an example. However, it could be more thorough by mentioning potential errors or linking to sibling tools for broader 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, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing an example ('Example: { id: "br_abc" }'), which clarifies the parameter's usage and format beyond the schema's basic description ('Broadcast ID'), elevating the score.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get', 'report on') and resources ('broadcast's details and aggregate delivery stats', 'send results'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_broadcasts' (which lists multiple broadcasts) and 'broadcast_performance' (which might focus on analytics rather than details).

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 explicitly states 'When to use: report on send results... for a specific broadcast', providing clear context for usage. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'list_broadcasts' for multiple broadcasts), missing full sibling differentiation.

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