Кому уйдёт рассылка

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds behavioral specifics: it shows only the first 50 conversations by freshness, flags warnings like 'пустой отбор, слишком широкий, неизвестные подстановки', and explicitly states 'Ничего не сохраняет' (persists nothing). This aligns with and enriches the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 dense but every sentence carries information: the first lists the preview outputs, the second gives the rationale for using it, the third covers side effects and condition semantics. No filler or repetition of schema contents.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return contents: counts, the first 50 matching conversations, how many silenced the bot, and message warnings. It also covers default behavior, side-effect-freedom, and the relationship to broadcasts_save, making it sufficient for an agent to call the 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?

The schema already covers all 11 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a general semantic that the filter conditions are 'те же, что у списка разговоров' (same as the conversation list) and that omitting all conditions means 'всех собеседников бота'. It also flags unknown substitutions in the text parameter, which is an extra warning 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 opens with 'Прикидка до отправки', clearly identifying this as a pre-send estimation tool for broadcasts. It enumerates concrete outputs: 'сколько разговоров подходит под условия, кто именно (первые 50 по свежести), сколько из них закрыли боту рот'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like broadcasts_start and broadcasts_save by focusing on preview before sending.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Разосланное не отзывают, поэтому смотреть надо здесь' – i.e., use it before sending because sent broadcasts cannot be recalled. It also names the alternative for saving drafts: 'черновик заводит broadcasts_save'. This gives the agent clear routing between preview and save operations.

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