get_broadcast_recipients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description reiterates read-only nature ('Fetches data. Makes no changes'), but adds no behavioral context beyond that—e.g., pagination behavior, rate limits, or error handling. The description does not deepen transparency beyond what annotations offer.

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 relatively brief and front-loads the HTTP method and endpoint. The repetition of 'Get broadcast recipients' and 'Fetch all contacts...' is slightly redundant, but overall it is efficient with no extraneous detail. It is structured with line breaks for readability.

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 complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, many filters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It omits return format, pagination details, how filters interact, and the effect of engagement/deliverability parameters. An agent lacks guidance to use the tool effectively with all its options.

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 100% (all 11 parameters described), so baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema—no parameter examples, no clarification of when to use filters, etc. It neither harms nor significantly improves parameter understanding.

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 retrieves broadcast recipients via 'Get broadcast recipients' and 'Fetch all contacts who were sent a specific broadcast'. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from related tools like 'get_broadcast' (broadcast details) and 'export_broadcast_recipients' (export operation).

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 implicitly indicates a read-only operation ('READ-ONLY', 'Makes no changes'), but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_broadcast_metrics' or 'export_broadcast_recipients'. No direct contrast with sibling tools is provided, leaving usage context to the agent's inference.

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