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

Annotations already declare destructive, open-world, and idempotent behavior, but the description does not explain what is destructive, that sources are sent to an external inference provider, or that consent and payment may be required. It adds little beyond restating that a brief is created.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is concise, though almost too terse for a tool with nested inputs and multiple required operational parameters.

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 complex, destructive, external-processing tool with no output schema, the description omits critical context: consent requirements, payment flow, idempotency behavior, evidence validation constraints, and what the resulting brief contains. It is not complete enough for safe 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 description maps loosely to category and datedEvidence, while the schema already documents most top-level and nested fields. It does not clarify sourceFields, sourceRunIds, or the operational implications of consentExternalProcessing and paymentInvoiceId, so it only partially compensates for the remaining coverage gaps.

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 specific verb and resource: create a category or commodity brief from dated market evidence. That is clear, but it does not distinguish this tool from adjacent sibling brief/risk/monitor tools.

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?

Only implies usage by saying the brief is created from evidence the caller provides. It gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives among the many sibling procurement and market tools.

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