morning_briefing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses a behavioral cost profile ('Quota: roughly 2 + artists + shows reads (budgeted)') — exactly the kind of trait an agent needs for cost-aware tool selection — and clarifies this is a multi-source aggregation read. It doesn't address failure modes or output shape, but response_format covers output style and the read-only nature is strongly implied.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: the digest contents, the sibling relationship, and the quota cost. The core idea is front-loaded and the '+'-separated component list packs maximum information into minimum space without becoming unreadable.

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 5-parameter aggregation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key decision factors: what is aggregated, how it relates to simpler alternatives, and what it costs in API reads. The response_format parameter handles output style, and the parameter descriptions cover the budget knobs. Minor gap: 'per-show backlog' semantics are never expanded, but this is a small omission against otherwise strong coverage.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some connective value by linking 'budgeted' quota language to max_shows/max_artists and mapping digest components to params like include_listening and since_hours, but it provides no parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already documents.

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 deliverable ('Daily digest in one call') and enumerates its four distinct components: new releases from followed artists, new episodes from saved shows, per-show backlog, and today's listening. The 'Superset of whats_new + show_new_episodes' phrase names sibling tools directly, making scope differentiation immediate and unambiguous.

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?

Positioning the tool as a superset of whats_new + show_new_episodes gives the agent an anchor for when to choose it (consolidated multi-facet digest) versus the targeted siblings. However, it never explicitly states a when-not-to-use condition, such as 'if you only need new releases, call whats_new instead' — the exclusion logic is implied rather than stated.

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