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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the return payload (errors, failed requests, comments, quoted speech, code-search strings, overview image), which is not visible anywhere else since there is no output schema. It stops short of noting behavior on malformed/expired links or any cost/pagination of a full briefing.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the entry-point instruction and the sibling hand-off, with the payload enumeration in the middle earning its place by substituting for an absent output schema. No filler.

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 and only two parameters, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well by listing what the briefing contains and pointing to the next tool. Gaps remain around invalid-link handling, permission/ownership requirements, and how large the briefing can get.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the recording parameter's accepted forms (share/embed/dashboard URL with or without ?t=, or an id) live in the schema. The description only hints at the overview flag via 'plus an overview image of the screen', adding marginal meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Start here with any Faylee link') and immediately defines what it produces: a briefing with intent, pages, key moments, transcript, searchable strings, and an overview image. This distinguishes it cleanly from the many get_* siblings that each return one slice, so an agent can pick it without opening schemas.

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?

'Start here with any Faylee link' gives an explicit entry-point condition, and 'Then use get_moment on any time in it' names the concrete alternative and the condition that selects it (a timestamp from the briefing). Sequencing between this tool and a sibling is spelled out rather than implied.

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