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

Even though annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: as_of returns the brief as published on a past date, the full brief is large, sections limits the payload, and 'plain_language' provides a specific desk-rendering with sub-fields. This goes well beyond what the annotations reveal and helps an agent predict output shape and cost.

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 dense but efficient: it opens with the product identity, then gives parameter usage, then closes with concrete section examples. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the examples make the section filtering behavior concrete without feeling padded.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, historical behavior, scope options, and section-level customization, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is not the description's burden. The missing 'market' parameter and the lack of explicit sibling differentiation are material but not fatal gaps. Overall, an agent can use this tool effectively in most cases.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for all parameters. It does explain as_of with a date format, scope with valid values, and sections with a rich list of examples. However, it provides no explanation for the 'market' parameter, leaving 1 of 4 parameters entirely undocumented, which is a clear gap for correct invocation.

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 identifies the resource—the Antevo Executive Brief—and its editorial contents: hero takeaway, regime, themes, key risks, and market snapshot. It uses retrieval verbs like 'retrieve' and 'fetch,' so an agent can understand what the tool returns. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_executive_desk or get_executive_note, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: pass as_of for a past publication date, choose 'retail' or 'institutional' scope, and use sections to avoid fetching the large full brief. It also includes practical examples for section values. It does not mention when to choose this tool over related sibling tools or state exclusion criteria, so it falls just short of a 5.

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