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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is largely redundant. It does add the useful behavioral context that answers are synthesized from the user's meetings, email, tasks and projects, but says nothing about latency, coverage limits, or answer reliability.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by concrete examples. 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?

For a one-parameter QA tool with no output schema, the description should ideally say what the response looks like (free-text answer, sources cited, etc.). The data sources are covered but the return shape is left implicit.

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% for the single 'question' parameter, so the description must compensate. The parenthetical example questions partially convey the expected natural-language shape and scope, but there is no explicit statement of format, length, or constraints.

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 (ask) and resource (SayBriefly's agent), plus the data sources it draws on (meetings, email, tasks, projects). This is clearly distinguishable from the get/list/search siblings, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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?

Provides example questions ('what did the client agree last week, what is still open for Acme') which imply when the tool is useful, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing versus search_meetings/list_meetings.

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