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

Annotations already declare this as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the ordering ('newest first'), the archive scope, and that only summaries are returned. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core definition and return content, then provides concise usage guidance and cross-referencing. Every clause earns its place.

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 explains what the tool lists and how to proceed to full text, and an output schema exists so return structure is covered. However, the two optional parameters, especially 'market', are left undocumented, which is a meaningful gap for a tool intended to list archived briefs. Overall adequate but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain either 'limit' or 'market'. While 'limit' may be self-explanatory, 'market' is ambiguous and lacks any guidance about acceptable values or how it affects results. The description fails to compensate for the schema's missing parameter documentation.

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 action ('list') and resource ('executive notes'), characterizes the archive as 'past Executive Briefs, newest first', and enumerates the fields returned (date, title, subtitle, hero line). It also differentiates itself by pointing to get_executive_note for full text, so an agent can distinguish this tool from its sibling.

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 explicit use cases: 'see what has been covered', 'find the date of a story', and 'follow how a theme developed over time'. It also names the alternative get_executive_note and tells the agent to call it for full text, making the routing between tools clear.

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