get_prospect_brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about whether the brief is generated on demand or must pre-exist from run_prospect_research, nor about latency, cost, or rate limits — a meaningful gap given the sibling research tool.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the returned content with no wasted words. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase, which slightly weakens orientation but keeps it tight.

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?

With no output schema, describing the returned fields is genuinely useful and the description does that. However, for a one-required-parameter tool it omits the identification convention for 'domain' and the dependency on prior research, leaving two real gaps.

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% — the single 'domain' parameter has only a title. The description says 'One prospect's' but never identifies the identifier as a domain, nor any format or resolution rule, so it fails to compensate for the schema's silence.

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 names a specific resource and its contents (summary, recent news, tech hints, fit score, sourced cold-email openers), which is far more informative than the name alone. It implies a single-prospect scope ('One prospect's'), which loosely distinguishes it from rank_prospects and get_signals, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of prerequisites such as first running run_prospect_research. The agent must infer from the name alone that this fetches one prospect's brief rather than a list or a research run.

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