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

The annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the meaningful prerequisite that only finished briefs are returned and mentions included content, but it does not detail error behavior or authorization needs; with an output schema present, return-value disclosure is less necessary.

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?

The description is two tight sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add useful context about content and provenance, with no wasted text.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers what the tool does, where the id comes from, and what kind of content is returned. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema itself does not explain brief_id. The description partially compensates by stating that the id comes from list_briefs or a completed job, but it does not describe the id format or any 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('finished Promoter Brief by id') and distinguishes it from list_briefs by requiring a known id and returning a single completed brief. It also notes the source of ids, making it clearly different from list_briefs and get_brief_job.

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 tells the agent to use this tool when it has an id from list_briefs or a completed job, which is clear context for invocation. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus get_brief_job, but the 'finished' qualifier does much of that work.

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