Get Sent Broadcast Message Count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read-like operation (getting a count) but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, safe, or non-destructive. It also does not disclose any potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. Given the simplicity, the lack of disclosure is not severe, but it leaves some ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the purpose without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly identifies the resource and scope. A minor omission is the return type (an integer count), which could be inferred but is not explicitly stated. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter (date), including format, pattern, and timezone. The description merely refers to 'a specified date' without adding any semantic nuance beyond what the schema already documents. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a resource ('number of broadcast messages') with a qualifier ('sent on a specified date'). It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling count tools like get_sent_push_count or get_sent_multicast_count, relying on the tool name for differentiation.

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 provides clear context by specifying 'broadcast messages', which implies its use case. However, it does not offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternative count tools (e.g., get_sent_push_count) or mention any conditions that would make it inappropriate. The 'when' is implied, not stated.

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