Refresh brief (markdown) per post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral context by detailing the brief's contents (verdict, reasons, raw numbers, etc.) and its purpose as a hand-off artefact. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and usage. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. Parameters are simple (url, optional window). Description covers usage context and output content, making it complete for a read-only brief generator.

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 50% (only 'url' described). The tool description does not elaborate on parameters beyond mentioning the output content. Since coverage is not high, description should compensate but doesn't, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Produce' and the resource 'markdown brief' with specific contents. Distinguishes from siblings by tying usage to specific verdict outcomes (refresh/expand/merge/double_down) from the sibling tool posts.verdict.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this as the hand-off artefact when verdict is refresh / expand / merge / double_down.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies when not to use it, differentiating from alternative tools like posts.verdict.

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