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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing what each investigation record contains (what was asked, verdict, explanation, signals applied, proposed source and whether it was added), which annotations cannot convey. It omits ordering/pagination, hence 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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence that names the resource first, then qualifies it. The em-dash clause is dense but informative rather than redundant. Slightly heavy for one parameter, but no filler.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is the main completeness burden here. Combined with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has what it needs; only ordering/pagination behavior is unspecified.

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 100% and there is a single optional parameter, so baseline is 3. 'Latest briefing by default' merely restates the schema's 'Omit for the latest' rather than adding format or scoping detail.

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 identifies the resource precisely as the investigations opened via report_missing_story on a briefing, and enumerates their contents, which cleanly separates it from get_briefing and list_briefings. It never states the verb 'list/return' directly, relying on the name, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 only usage signal is 'Latest briefing by default' and the implicit link to report_missing_story, which implies this is where you revisit investigations already opened. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. report_missing_story or list_briefings, and no exclusions, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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