Get a broadcast

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the exact OAuth scopes required, the 'full_content' data sensitivity level, and the fact that no idempotency key is needed.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then a compact set of metadata lines (operation, scopes, sensitivity, idempotency, workspace override). No sentence is redundant and the retriable/safety facts are parsed easily.

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?

With annotations carrying the safety profile and an output schema existing, return values need not be described. Auth requirements, workspace override, endpoint mapping and idempotency are all covered; the only gap is error/not-found behavior and explicit sibling routing.

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 67% (id is undocumented in the schema) and the description fills that gap meaningfully, explaining that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override the environment-configured default workspace. That default-vs-override semantics is not derivable from the schema text alone.

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+resource ('Get broadcast detail') and maps it to the concrete operation GET /api/broadcasts/{id}. It clearly reads as a single-resource fetch, distinguishing it implicitly from luca_broadcasts_list, but it never names a sibling or contrasts itself explicitly with preview/list/approve.

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?

Gives useful preconditions (required scopes broadcasts:read and luca:read, no idempotency key needed, workspace override behavior) but no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance — nothing tells the agent when to call this instead of luca_broadcasts_list or luca_broadcasts_preview. Usage is implied by the read-detail nature of the tool.

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