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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is free. The description still adds real value by enumerating which lifecycle states are returned (in progress, frozen, skipped), which is behavioral information not present in annotations, but it says nothing about scoping, permissions, or whether skipped items appear with status labels.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. The parenthetical '(and client, where given)' is slightly ambiguous about whether client filtering or display is meant, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tool with full annotations and an output schema, little is strictly required, and the status enumeration is a useful addition. What is missing is routing context against the crowded sibling set – nothing tells the agent why to pick grill_list over stempa_briefs or grill_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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which normally sets a baseline of 4, but the description instead spends its words describing the shape of the output ('by title (and client, where given)... in progress, frozen and skipped') rather than any call semantics. Since an output schema exists, that content is partly duplicative, leaving the parameter dimension as adequate-but-minimal.

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 ('List this account's briefs') and adds the dimensions of the listing (title, client) and the statuses covered. It does not distinguish itself from similarly named siblings such as stempa_briefs or grill_get, which an agent could easily confuse for this same listing capability.

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?

Usage is only implied – the agent can infer 'call this to browse briefs' but there is no explicit when-to-use, no pointer to grill_get for detail retrieval, and no clarification against stempa_briefs. With 14 siblings and two other brief-related list-ish tools, that omission matters.

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