Daily Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: default date falls back to the most recent report, list view dedupes titles, and limit is clamped to 1-30. This clarifies response behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 well-organized with a clear overview, bullet-like view explanations, and a short Args section. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the most important distinction between views is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, so the description correctly explains what each view returns: report view includes title, markdown content, and scan_date; list view includes scan_date, title, and created_at. Combined with parameter semantics and defaults, the agent has everything needed to call the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does: date is a YYYY-MM-DD string for the report view, view selects between 'report' and 'list', and limit controls list count with default and clamp. This adds all necessary meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 identifies the tool as 'The daily intelligence report' with two specific views, 'report' and 'list'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pool or get_signal, and the resource and actions are explicit.

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 clear usage context by explaining when to use each view, including default behavior when date is omitted and the purpose of limit. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus a sibling, but the domain is distinct enough that no conflicting alternative exists.

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