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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a curated once-daily synthesis (not raw), sources are explicitly named (HN/Reddit and official legislative), and the archive is public with any past date accessible. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying what the tool returns and its access assumptions, though it stops short of describing response structure or rate 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 three concise sentences: the first establishes the core purpose, the second differentiates from a sibling, and the third explains the optional parameter. It is front-loaded with the most important information and every sentence serves a distinct purpose with 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it (vs the sibling), and exactly how to use the parameter. It even adds transparency about sources and archive accessibility, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, with the parameter fully described in the schema ('Optional YYYY-MM-DD for a past briefing... omit for the latest briefing'). The description only repeats the same semantics with slightly different wording, adding no new parameter-specific detail beyond the schema. Thus, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Today's aggregate AI industry briefing' and enumerates contents (top stories, emerging signals, new entrants, regulation updates). It explicitly contrasts with get_new_since ('for raw item-level updates since your last check, use get_new_since instead'), clearly distinguishing its aggregated, curated scope from the raw item-level sibling.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance by naming the alternative get_new_since for raw updates, and gives condition for using the optional date parameter ('Optionally pass any past date...'). It also implies the default use case (latest briefing) by omission, aligning with the schema's 'omit for the latest briefing'.

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