taste_daily_brief

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only, no auth', which is clear about the tool's non-destructive nature and authentication requirements. However, it does not mention any rate limits or potential data aggregation behavior, though this is minor for a read-only 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?

The description is extremely concise and well-structured: one sentence summarizing the output and another stating the read-only/auth nature. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description provides enough context to understand what the tool does and its safety profile. It does not explicitly mention that it operates per user (statsfm_user parameter), but that is captured in the schema. For a simple read-only brief, the description is sufficiently 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 description adds some meaning by implying the 'date' parameter (via 'Yesterday (or a given date)') and explaining the output content, but it does not elaborate on the 'statsfm_user' or 'response_format' parameters. The schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (coverage 100%), so the description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond clarifying the date's purpose.

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 states the tool's purpose: providing a daily brief for yesterday or a given date, with specific content (top-3 tracks, 2 revival picks, novelty share vs lifetime core). It is concise 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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool compared to the many similar taste-related sibling tools (e.g., taste_profile, taste_recommendations). It lacks explicit context for scenario-based selection.

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