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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the auth context that annotations do not carry: a JWT and a live membership are required, which tells the agent the call will fail for an anonymous or expired session.

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 short sentences with no filler, but the front-loaded sentence is the requirement rather than the purpose, delaying what the tool actually returns. It is terse without being maximally informative.

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 zero-parameter read with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the definition is minimally adequate. It omits any indication of what the brief contains or its shape, which is the main remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes nothing to explain and the baseline is 4. The description introduces no parameter information that could mislead, but also nothing extra to document.

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 identifies the resource ('the brief promoters see for you') but never states a clean verb+object like 'retrieve your campaign brief'; the title carries most of the meaning. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as network_briefs or network_brief_set, so an agent must infer that this is the single-item read.

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?

It states a prerequisite ('Requires a JWT and a live membership') but gives no when-to-use guidance and never names an alternative such as network_briefs for listing or network_brief_set for updating. There is no explicit condition that selects this tool over its siblings.

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