program_brief

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

The description lists the summary's contents, which gives useful behavioral context about what will be returned. However, with no annotations, it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication or specific permissions, how fresh the 'recent activity' is, or whether any limits apply.

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 a single front-loaded sentence fragment with a colon-delimited list of outputs. It is efficient and has no filler, though it is terse enough that some important context is omitted.

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?

For a read-only summary tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable list of return categories. It is still incomplete because it does not explain program_id semantics, disambiguate from sibling tools, or describe behavioral constraints such as read-only status or data freshness.

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% and the description does not mention program_id at all. The parameter name is self-describing, but no format, example, or constraint is provided to compensate for the empty schema description.

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 a summary resource for a program and enumerates the included content areas: rewards, fee, competition, scope counts, recent activity, payouts, and sample eligible targets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_program or program_payouts, but the 'one-screen summary' framing makes its role reasonably clear.

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 phrase 'one-screen summary' implies a quick overview use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_program, program_payouts, or other siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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