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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: the tool needs no Debriefing account, and it describes the shape of the returned brief content.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: purpose and return contents first, then addressing modes, then the fallback rule. Every sentence carries information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be detailed, and the description still covers addressing modes and the no-account requirement. Minor gaps remain around failure behavior (e.g., unknown slug/company) and whether all three params can be combined, but 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds precedence semantics the schema does not state: url alone, or company_slug + slug together, or company_slug alone resolving to the newest brief. That combination/fallback logic is genuinely beyond the field-level descriptions.

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 and resource ('Gets one competitive brief that Debriefing published on debriefing.io') and enumerates exactly what is returned: summary, findings with category and date, and numbered sources with URLs. This clearly separates it from siblings like search_public_briefs (plural, discovery) and get_free_brief_link.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: name the brief by URL, or by company_slug + slug from search_public_briefs, and notes the company_slug-only fallback returns the newest brief. It names the sibling that supplies slugs and states the account-free condition, though it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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