mailkite_list_broadcasts

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that results include status and send stats, and by explicitly calling out the auth requirement. It does not mention pagination, but that is a minor gap for a simple list tool.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the parenthetical adds useful disambiguation, and the auth requirement is stated separately and concisely.

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 low complexity, empty parameter schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It identifies what is returned, the resource domain, and the required token, with no missing critical information.

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?

There are no parameters in the input schema, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the schema. The baseline score of 4 applies because the empty schema already fully documents the absence of parameters.

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 a precise verb and resource: 'List your broadcasts (one-to-many sends)'. Adding 'with status and send stats' clarifies what the listing returns, making it easy to distinguish from singular tools like mailkite_get_broadcast and from generic message listing.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is used: when you need a list of broadcasts with status and send stats. It also notes the required auth context ('management session token'). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but for a zero-parameter list operation the usage is evident.

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