The 07:00 Brief

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 fully covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the embedded notes appear only 'when they were published,' implying conditional/missing fields, and the no-date default. It says nothing about date-range limits or error behavior, so it adds value but not richly.

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 second sentence front-loads the date behavior efficiently, but the first sentence is a long comma-chained enumeration of brief sections that largely restates what the output schema already describes. It is readable but not tight.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, and with annotations present it needn't explain safety. The date format and default are the genuinely useful additions. Missing: any routing guidance among the three sibling tools and the boundary conditions (invalid/future dates, timezone) for the single parameter.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does: it supplies the accepted format (YYYY-MM-DD) and the default semantics of omitting the parameter (latest brief). That is exactly the missing information the schema omits, though it doesn't cover timezone or out-of-range date behavior.

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 names a specific resource and scope: 'The 07:00 Brief for one day,' plus an enumeration of its sections (title, hero line, market regime, take, catalysts, risks). An agent can tell what it retrieves, but nothing in the text distinguishes it from siblings like list_recent_briefs or get_sector_notes, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives implicit usage via the date behavior ('without a date it is the latest brief; with date ... that day'), which tells the agent how to invoke it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative list_recent_briefs for browsing multiple briefs.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the default-to-latest behavior and what the latest edition aggregates (tracking start, mornings read, risks tracked). It says nothing about pagination or rate limits, but those are not central here.

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?

It is front-loaded with the resource identity, but the long enumeration of output fields (theme, trend, impact, probability, summary, indicator, portfolio meaning, first-seen, morning count) largely duplicates the existing output schema and inflates the sentence without adding call-time value.

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 single optional-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly, including the date format and default. The return-field enumeration is redundant given the output schema, but nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 compensates fully: it names the parameter's format (YYYY-MM-DD), its meaning (the radar published that day), and its default behavior (latest radar when omitted). An agent can invoke it correctly from the description alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource — retrieving the ranked Risk Radar risks with their theme, trend, impact and probability — and ties it to 'The 07:00 Brief'. It is clearly a getter for a distinct artifact, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like get_morning_brief.

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?

It clarifies the selection rule for the single parameter: no date returns the latest radar, a date returns that day's radar. That is actionable context, though there is no guidance on when to prefer a sibling tool or when this tool is inappropriate.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: default scope (all five sectors), how invalid sector names are handled, and what the date omission does.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the valid sector set, then the branching behaviour of the two filters. Dense but every clause is functional; the only cost is that the sector enumeration bulks up the middle.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description fully covers input semantics, defaults, and edge cases (invalid sector names, date-omitted behaviour). Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must carry the full load, and it does: it enumerates every valid sector id with its display label, clarifies that 'sectors' narrows the default set of five, and specifies the YYYY-MM-DD date format plus its default (latest note). A reader needs nothing further to supply valid arguments.

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 concrete verb and resource — retrieving sector notes from 'The 07:00 Brief' — and enumerates the five sectors with human-readable labels. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_morning_brief or list_recent_briefs, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Gives clear conditional behavior: no date returns the latest note per sector, a date (YYYY-MM-DD) returns notes published that day, and names outside the five valid sectors are reported as unavailable rather than silently dropped. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for when a broader brief is wanted.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are sorted newest first, today is included, and only summary fields (date, title, hero line) are returned rather than full brief bodies. That last point is a useful disclosure about result shape not encoded in the annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads what is returned and then the filter detail — no filler. It is dense, packing purpose, ordering, returned fields, and parameter bounds into one colon-delimited construction, but 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it still clarifies the summary-level fields and sort order. The sole parameter is fully specified, annotations cover the safety profile, and no prerequisite or behavioral gap remains for a simple read-only listing tool.

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%, so the description must carry the burden and it does: it defines the valid range (1 to 30), the default (7), and the inclusive counting semantics (today included). That fully documents the single parameter beyond the bare 'integer, default 7' in the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (list) and resource (recent editions of The 07:00 Brief) and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows it is a browse/list operation rather than the single-item retrieval implied by the get_* siblings. It never names a sibling or states the contrast explicitly, so sibling differentiation is inferred 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?

Ordering ('newest first'), the day window, and the default give clear context that this is for browsing recent editions. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_morning_brief for full content, nor any exclusion or prerequisite, so the usage guidance remains implied.

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