Get Broadcast Channel Messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns a paginated list with type, content, and timestamps, and mentions the pagination cursor, which clarifies the output shape. It doesn't discuss rate limits or auth, but for a read operation with these annotations, this is acceptable.

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 and structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loading the core purpose. Every line adds information, with no fluff. It's slightly repetitive of the schema but remains 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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains inputs and return values well, but omits the response_format parameter which affects output shape. There's also no mention of when to use this over siblings, which is a minor gap in context. Overall, it's a functional but not comprehensive definition.

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 description adds useful detail for limit (range 1-100, default 20) which is not in the schema's description, and restates channel_id and after. However, it omits response_format, which is documented in the schema with a clear description. Since schema coverage is 75%, the description partially compensates but misses one parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Gets messages in an Instagram broadcast channel') that is unambiguous and distinguishable from related tools like conversation or post messages. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the title and description are aligned, giving it a clear purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative messaging tools such as meta_get_instagram_messages or meta_get_conversation_messages. It provides no context about selecting this over siblings, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

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