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

The description directly contradicts the openWorldHint annotation: it states 'no external research or outbound actions' while openWorldHint=true implies potential external world access. This is a clear annotation contradiction. Additionally, it doesn't clarify the destructiveHint=true annotation or the payment authorization details beyond a mention, so the description misleads rather than adds value.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the core action (condense), then scope, then return type, then cost/payment. Every sentence adds useful information, and the structure is logical and efficient.

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 paid tool with nested required parameters and no output schema, the description omits critical details: what constitutes a valid 'brief', how to provide 'source_text', how payment_signature works, and what the draft output format looks like. The contradiction with openWorldHint further reduces reliability, leaving an agent under-equipped to call it correctly.

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 compensate by explaining what parameters like 'brief', 'source_text', and 'audience' mean. However, the description provides no parameter-specific semantics at all. An agent cannot determine how to fill the required 'input' object or what 'brief' vs 'source_text' should contain.

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 clearly states the tool condenses supplied material into decision-relevant findings, evidence, risks, and actions, and returns a draft for human review. This specific verb+resource+output distinguishes it from sibling tools like decision_memo or meeting_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 that the tool uses only buyer-supplied information and performs no external research or outbound actions, which helps an agent avoid misusing it for tasks requiring external data. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for choosing this one over others, leaving some inference needed.

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