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). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the Research page is a flat read-only list whose markup/URL carry no ids, explaining why the tool must be used as an id lookup.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the resource, returned fields, and the reason-for-existence clause; it finishes by routing to update_research_brief. No filler or redundancy.

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 helpfully enumerates the returned shape (id, kind, title, content, dates), and annotations cover safety. Only minor gaps remain, such as list size, ordering, or pagination behavior, none of which block correct invocation.

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?

The single brandId parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('The brand's id, from list_brands'), so the schema carries the meaning. The description only implies the brand scoping via 'a brand's' and adds no format or sourcing detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Lists a brand's saved research briefs') and enumerates the brief kinds (market, competitor, audience, domain, other) plus the fields returned, which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_knowledge_proposals or get_brand_brief.

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 tells the agent when to reach for this tool: to find a brief's id before calling update_research_brief, since the dashboard exposes no ids. It names the downstream alternative rather than a rival list tool, so there is no explicit when-not guidance, but the context is clear.

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