get_broadcast_failures

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces that it is read-only and makes no changes. It adds context about the HTTP method, SMS scope, and return data (grouping and counts).

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 concise (5 lines) and front-loaded with a read-only indicator, SMS, and HTTP method. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

While the description covers the core purpose, it does not mention pagination, filtering, or other parameter capabilities. Given the 7 parameters, it could be more complete, but the openWorldHint reduces the need for exhaustive 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?

Schema coverage is 100% so the schema itself documents all parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, thus baseline score of 3.

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 that the tool retrieves broadcast failure details and returns 'grouping and counts of failures'. This distinguishes it from related tools like get_broadcast_metrics or get_broadcast_recipients.

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 implies usage for retrieving failure details but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance on when not to use this tool.

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