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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds valuable content-level behavior beyond that: it discloses the `gaps` and `watch` sections and a notable data-integrity rule (market figures only carried with a source URL, otherwise withheld and flagged). That provenance/withholding behavior is genuine context not derivable from 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then progressively more detail on sections and provenance. Slightly dense but every sentence adds distinct value; no filler.

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?

No output schema, so the description does useful work describing the returned sections and their provenance rule. It doesn't explain the overall structure or scope of the brief, but for a zero-param read tool it is largely complete.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Description appropriately says nothing about params and instead describes the shape of the returned content (gaps, watch), which is useful.

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 resource (the daily synthesized morning brief narrative) and its scope (cross-domain analysis, what moved and what to watch). Distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings by being the synthesized daily narrative rather than feeds/signals, though it doesn't contrast explicitly with get_desk_feed or get_watch_feed.

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?

Implies when to use it ('morning brief', 'same content as the public /today page') but never states when to prefer it over siblings like get_desk_feed, get_watch_feed, or start_here. No exclusions or alternatives named.

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