get_content_briefing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully fill it: it discloses that the operation is read-only, costs 0 credits, and raises a 409 while the analysis is still pending. It does not cover rate limits or pagination, but the cost, safety profile, and failure modes are covered.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first front-loads what the briefing contains, the second adds cost/safety and the failure condition. No filler, though the structure is slightly terse for the guidance it is trying to convey.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the safety profile, cost, and the key error state. The main gap is parameter meaning, which is largely a separate dimension, so the description is close to complete for a simple read getter.

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 0% for two parameters (query_id required, project_id optional) and the description says nothing about either. With such low coverage the description should compensate, but it provides no explanation of what query_id or project_id refer to, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 resource and enumerates its contents (terms, entities, questions, outline) for a 'finished content analysis', so an agent knows what it will get. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_content_query or get_content_status, which share the 'retrieve content-analysis state' space.

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 'of a finished content analysis' plus the '409 query_not_ready while the analysis is still pending' note gives an implied precondition for use. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not guidance is given beyond the pending-state caveat.

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