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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds the content scope (changes in portfolio and watchlist) but provides no extra behavioral context such as output format, freshness, or limits.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately communicates the time window and subject matter, which is appropriately concise for a parameterless tool.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only briefing tool, the description conveys the core intent and scope sufficiently. It does not specify the exact structure of the briefing, but this is a minor gap given the simple input schema and read-only annotation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers all parameter semantics by definition; the baseline of 4 applies. The description's mention of portfolio and watchlist reinforces that the tool relies on the user's pre-existing context.

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?

The description clearly names the resource: a daily briefing ('Odprawa na dziś') that reports changes in the user's portfolio and watchlist. This goes beyond a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling getters like get_activity_feed or get_portfolio_context.

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 phrase 'na dziś' and the focus on portfolio/watchlist changes imply a daily summary use case. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related sibling tools, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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