List broadcasts

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context beyond them: required scopes (broadcasts:read, luca:read), data sensitivity 'redacted', and the environment-default workspace behavior with an explicit override path. 'Does not require idempotency' is somewhat redundant against idempotentHint=true, but it reads as 'no idempotency key needed' rather than a contradiction.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the core purpose is the first sentence, with filters and workspace override following. Some lines are boilerplate metadata ('Luca operation: GET /api/broadcasts', 'Does not require idempotency') that consume space without much decision value, but the whole description is compact and scannable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and pagination behavior (maxPages auto-fetch, truncation, nextCursor) is fully documented in the schema. With auth scopes, sensitivity, workspace scoping and the read-only/idempotent profile all present, an agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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 75% and the maxPages/workspaceId/workspaceSlug descriptions already live in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description enumerates the query filters (limit, cursor, status) and adds the meaningful detail that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override the environment-configured default workspace, but it adds no format or bounds information (cursor opacity, limit ceiling, status enum values) 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List broadcasts') and the underlying operation (GET /api/broadcasts), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not differentiate itself from the many other list tools in the sibling set (luca_campaigns_list, luca_leads_list, luca_conversations_list) beyond the resource name, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and by the mention of the limit/cursor/status query filters, and there is a useful line about workspaceId/workspaceSlug overriding the environment default workspace. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when-not to use it, and no routing to alternatives such as luca_broadcasts_get for a single broadcast.

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