get_world_brief

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the result includes a freshness object (brief_date, age_hours, is_stale) and explaining how to handle stale data. It also notes the tool is free of token charges, adding behavioral context that is not present in the annotations.

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 informative and every element serves a purpose, but the first sentence is quite long and contains a nested list, slightly reducing readability. Overall it's concise and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 a single optional parameter, annotations, and an output schema, the description adds essential context about the brief's content, freshness object, and how to interpret staleness. It is complete for effective use.

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 schema fully documents the single optional 'date' parameter with format and default behavior (defaults to latest available). The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond this, and with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool fetches the Daily World Brief, an AI-synthesized OSINT/GEOINT digest of the previous UTC day's events. It specifies the exact content structure (headline, executive summary, top developments, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_signals that provide raw data.

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 makes the tool's purpose clear—fetching a daily brief—so the context for when to use it is evident. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as query_signals for raw signal data or state any exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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