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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the brief includes anomaly signals with severity and provenance links, and explains that include_narrative toggles Orion's written prose. This gives a clear expectation of what the tool returns, despite not explicitly stating it is read-only or mentioning side effects.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and content, then a directed hint for the optional parameter. Every sentence is meaningful, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description thoroughly covers what the brief contains, how to trigger the narrative, and how it fits as the daily entry point. It is complete for an agent to understand the tool's scope and invocation.

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 schema already fully describes include_narrative, including its type and effect. The description adds only a brief reminder ('Set include_narrative for Orion's written prose summary'), which slightly clarifies the parameter's purpose but does not provide additional depth beyond the schema's description.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('get'), resource ('daily brief'), and content ('headline, anomaly signals with severity, key network metrics, and provenance links'). It differentiates from siblings by framing itself as the starting point for 'what is happening on Celestia today?', making it the obvious choice for a daily overview.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Start here for...'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, only implicitly positioning it as the primary daily summary against sibling tools like get_signals or get_report.

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