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

The description says "the choice put in the record, which is compiled again," which reads as recording an answer and recompiling a record — a write. Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, directly conflicting with that reading. Even reading it charitably, key behavior (whether re-answering overwrites a previous choice, what authorization is needed) is unstated.

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?

It is short, but the single sentence is a cramped inverted construction with two colons-worth of meaning compressed into it, so the key action is not front-loaded. The final clause "which is compiled again" adds words without adding clarity.

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. However, for a call that gates a brief's record, the description never says what changes after an answer, whether previous answers are kept, or why the record is recompiled — gaps the annotations actively worsen by claiming a read-only profile.

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 coverage is 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description gestures at the brief and the choice but adds nothing about `language` (its enum, its default, or its effect on the answer) and no format detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 question set_brief asked, answered" implies a verb (answer) and a resource (a question inside a brief), and naming set_brief gives a routing hook. But the elliptical, inverted phrasing and the opaque trailing clause "which is compiled again" leave the actual effect ambiguous — it is unclear whether the choice is written, validated, or merely echoed.

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?

set_brief is named as the source of the question, which hints at the workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of siblings that could be confused with it (amend_brief, save_brief, rehearse_brief, forget_brief). No exclusions or preconditions are given.

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