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

The annotations already say readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the specific reason: it 'saves the client's relationship-health score for the day.' It also discloses that empty sections come back empty, which is useful behavioral detail. It doesn't cover permissions, cost, or latency, so it is not a 5.

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 verb and resource are front-loaded, and the long middle enumeration of brief sections is dense but purposeful. It is fairly long, yet every clause maps to a section or behavior an agent might need to know.

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 explain return values, yet it does enumerate sections—useful but partially redundant. The more significant gaps are the unexplained firm_id parameter and the absence of any guidance on when to choose this tool over a sibling like get_client_dossier.

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 carries the full burden. It implies client_id via 'for one client' but never mentions firm_id, leaving one of the two parameters entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Build a meeting brief for one client') and then enumerates the section types the brief will contain, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It falls short of a 5 because it never differentiates itself from the similar-looking sibling get_client_dossier.

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?

Meeting preparation is clearly the implied context, but the description never states when to use this tool versus get_client_dossier or another retrieval tool, nor any preconditions. Usage must be inferred from the name and the enumeration of brief sections.

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