Morning brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioural detail beyond that: exactly what aggregates come back (open/critical/waiting-on-IT counts, top three tickets with rationale, device totals and worst offline site, alert counts by severity). It stops short of noting any freshness/caching or cost considerations, but with no output schema this return description carries most of the load.

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 paragraphs: purpose and routing first, return contract second. Every sentence carries distinct information, and the 'use this first' instruction is front-loaded ahead of the sibling pointers.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the returned aggregates precisely enough for an agent to know what it will get and when to escalate to the detail tools. For a zero-parameter read-only summary tool this is complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; it correctly avoids inventing any. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies, and the description spends its words instead on output shape, which is the right trade-off.

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 ('start-of-day summary of the whole help desk in one call') and explicitly scopes it as an aggregate rather than a list. It names the sibling tools that give the per-item detail, so an agent can distinguish it from triage_queue, site_health and open_alerts without inspecting schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers ('Use this first when the user asks "what needs me?"...') and names three alternatives for when the full lists are needed. Both the selection and the exclusion conditions are stated.

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