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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: a call may queue a research run, may spend a run, returns the best stored file with a note on what is still filling, and requires an active Whimbrel key. It stops short of describing failure modes or the exact response shape, but the cost/auth/queueing behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the brief's contents, then the parameter guidance, then the freshness/cost rule. The short imperative 'Pass X' sentences are efficient, though the parameter section is somewhat redundant with the schema and the brief could be tightened.

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 carries the burden of describing the return, and it does so: the brief's sections plus a note on what is still filling. Auth requirement, queueing, and freshness behavior are all covered; only the since parameter and explicit failure behavior are unaddressed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, and the description largely repeats it ('Pass refresh to force a new run' mirrors the schema's force-refresh text). The one real addition is the queueing implication of fact versus the full file. Notably, the description never mentions the since parameter at all, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 names a specific resource (the full company brief) and enumerates exactly what it contains: leadership and buying committee, company facts, contact routes, named partners, supporting evidence, and known gaps. It does not, however, differentiate itself from obvious siblings like micro_brief or company_timeline, so an agent must infer which brief to pick.

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?

Gives concrete conditions for each mode: pass domain when asking for new research, pass refresh to force a run, pass fact for a single stored fact without queueing. The freshness rule (a record within the week is served as stored and does not spend a run) tells the agent when a call is cheap versus costly. It never names an alternative sibling tool or states when not to use this one.

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