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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the default-filtering behavior and 'each carries its quote', but the filtering rule is already spelled out in the kind parameter's schema description, so little new behavioral context is added.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the default behavior front-loaded and the mode variants enumerated compactly. Nothing is wasted, though the quoted enum values make it slightly dense to parse.

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 an output schema, 100% schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description only needs to orient the agent, and it does so adequately by explaining the default-vs-variant list behavior. No critical aspect of calling this read-only list tool is left unstated.

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 100%, so kind, after, limit, and projectId are all fully documented in the schema, including default and clamping behavior. The description restates only the kind semantics and says nothing about pagination or projectId scoping, so it adds no meaning 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+resource ('List briefs') and immediately clarifies what subset of briefs is returned and the three modes available. It does not explicitly contrast with get_brief or suggest_briefs, but the kind semantics make the scope 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?

Tells the agent what the default returns and when to reach for kind:"clip" vs kind:"all", which is genuine selection guidance among modes. It stops short of stating when to prefer a sibling like get_brief for a single record.

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