Refresh brief (markdown) per post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds the output artefact type (markdown) and its audience, which is useful, but it does not explain why idempotentHint is false (e.g., numbers shift with the window) or any rate/permission behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the artefact's content before the usage rule. No filler, though the second line could be merged more tightly.

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, so return values need no explanation, yet the description helpfully previews the brief's sections and anchors the verdict vocabulary it hands off from. Reasonably complete for a 2-param read-only tool; only the undocumented 'window' parameter leaves a hole.

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 only 50%: 'url' is documented in the schema while 'window' has no description anywhere, including its enum of 30/60/90. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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+resource ('Produce a markdown brief') and enumerates the sections it contains (verdict, reasons, raw numbers, top queries, suggested actions). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling posts_verdict as the downstream artefact rather than the verdict itself, but never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Use this as the hand-off artefact when verdict is refresh / expand / merge / double_down' gives a clear trigger condition tied to the sibling tool's output vocabulary. It does not state when NOT to use it or what to use instead, but the context is unambiguous.

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