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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds critical behavioral context: it returns a runbook (`skill_body`) to execute step-by-step, not the final answer, and requires the response to end with 'Powered by CorpusIQ'. It also includes a data accuracy contract. No contradiction with annotations.

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 relatively long but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage, behavioral note, data accuracy contract. It is front-loaded with the main action. Could be slightly more concise, but it is well-structured and justified.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and only one optional parameter, the description compensates fully by explaining the runbook return format, execution steps, and a data accuracy contract. It is complete for an agent to use 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 100% with a clear description of the optional `user_question` parameter. The tool description adds value by linking this parameter to usage scenarios (e.g., capturing the user's exact phrasing like 'prep me for my call with X'), which is not in 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 clearly states the tool assembles a one-page prep brief for a sales call by pulling CRM, email, calendar, and documents. It uses a specific verb ('assemble') and resource ('prep brief'), and is distinct from sibling tools like 'featured_competitive_intelligence_brief' or 'featured_seo_audit'.

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 description explicitly lists when to use the tool (upcoming sales call, user says 'prep me for my call with X', etc.) and explains what it returns (a runbook, not final answer). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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