list_broadcasts

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Fetches data. Makes no changes' and confirms pagination. This reinforces the read-only nature and provides behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise with three sentences, each adding distinct value: the HTTP method and icon, the core action, and the pagination/filtering aspect. It is front-loaded with the read-only indicator and method, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Despite having 10 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the response format, pagination details (like limit, offset), or sorting options. It only mentions 'paged list' and 'optional filtering'. For a tool with this complexity, the description is incomplete and leaves the agent without critical 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 10 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema itself documents each parameter thoroughly. The tool description only generically mentions 'optional filtering' without adding any new semantics or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not compensate beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving all broadcast messages with a specific verb and resource ('Get all broadcast messages'). It is distinct from 'get_broadcast' which retrieves a single broadcast, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings. The purpose is clear and well-stated.

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 only mentions 'optional filtering' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_broadcast' or 'list_broadcast_lists'. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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