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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'Changes nothing'. It adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: newest-first ordering, default page size, the next_before cursor for paging older, and the exact compact row fields returned. Not a 5 only because it doesn't note edge cases like what happens when the board has no briefs.

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 use case and resource are front-loaded in the first clause, and every sentence carries information. The parenthetical parameter list is dense and slightly repetitive with the schema, keeping it just below top marks.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned row fields (brief_id, title, status, ran_at, etc.) and the paging model. Combined with the annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit, before, status, board_id, and automation_workflow_id, including the enum meanings and cursor semantics. The description restates these inline but adds no format or usage detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('find a past shoot… the account's briefs, newest first') and frames the user phrasings that trigger it. It also distinguishes itself from get_brief by pointing there for full values, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers ('run the same as last week', 'what ran') and names the follow-up alternative get_brief for details. The status/automation_workflow_id notes further imply when to narrow versus list broadly.

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