fahali_daily_brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered; the description adds payload-size intent and the shape of the response. However, it claims the tool is lightweight 'without a large payload' while the schema's `detail` parameter defaults to `audit` (described as full-fidelity), and the description never reconciles that — an agent following the prose alone would get the opposite of what is promised.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, then return contents, then sibling routing. No filler and the most decision-relevant information 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained. But for a tool whose entire selling point is a small payload, the description omits the one thing an agent must know to honor that: the `detail` default is `audit`, not `brief`, and `include_withheld` defaults to true, so the caller must override parameters to actually get the lightweight response described.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters (limit, since, detail, symbols, include_withheld) with defaults and enum semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 frames the tool as a compact daily market orientation and enumerates what it returns (key change, why it matters, evidence quality, next actions). It names the two sibling tools it is not (market briefing, market verdict), so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema. It falls short of a 5 only because the framing is payload-centric rather than a crisp verb+resource statement.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent: use market briefing for depth, market verdict for named symbols, implying this is the default-shallow, symbol-agnostic entry point. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. don't use this for a specific instrument question), but the alternatives are named and the selection condition is inferable.

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