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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the bar is lower — yet the description adds two things annotations cannot convey: the payload is trimmed to a bounded size with a URL to the full page, and the content is AI-generated analysis rather than news reporting. It does not mention rate limits, but the truncation and provenance disclosures are the substantive behaviors an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool is and what it corresponds to, then variant details in parallel structure. The local-variant sentence is dense and runs long, but every clause describes an actual output characteristic rather than padding.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still covers truncation, provenance, and both variants. The one omission is routing guidance relative to the sibling report tools, which is the remaining gap for a zero-required-parameter tool with three siblings.

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 already 100%, but the description still adds real meaning for the type parameter by enumerating what each variant contains and explaining the local variant's dedup and LOW-confidence rules. The cadence parameter is left entirely to 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?

Names a specific resource and origin — the structured daily report Apprised.news publishes, the same payload /api/get-report serves — and then splits it into two named variants ("intel" cross-desk report with its sections, "local" Local Wire). An agent knows exactly what payload it receives before opening the schema.

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 type variants give implied selection guidance (default intel vs. state/local press), but the description never contrasts this tool with the closely related siblings get_brief, get_breaking_news, or list_briefs. The agent must infer which report tool to call from names alone.

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