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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds ordering (newest first) and response shape, but says nothing about the cadence parameter's retrospective semantics (weekly = dated Mondays, etc.) or defaults, which are the non-obvious behavioral aspects beyond the schema.

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 returns before the supporting caveats, and no filler sentences. The inline restatement of all eleven desk keys duplicates the enum descriptions, which is mildly wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description needn't explain return values. Coverage is strong except for the cadence option, whose retrospective behavior is described only in the schema, leaving a small gap for a three-parameter tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the desk key-to-label mapping that the schema already provides and adds no meaning for limit or cadence.

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 ('Recent briefs from one Apprised.news desk, newest first') and enumerates the returned fields (date, headline, URL). It also draws the boundary against nearby concepts by noting 'Local Wire is a report, not a desk brief' and that the content is 'AI-generated analysis, not news reporting.'

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?

Implicitly scopes usage to pulling recent briefs for a single desk, and explicitly excludes the Local Wire report, steering the agent toward a report-style sibling. It does not name get_brief or get_daily_report to clarify when to fetch a single brief versus a list.

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