daily_digest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and explicitly states 'Read-only and deterministic (pure aggregation of BigQuery data, no LLM involved).' This discloses side-effect profile, determinism, and computation source. It doesn't detail empty-result or error behavior, but the disclosure is strong for a zero-input aggregation 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?

Two purposeful sentences: the first front-loads the deliverable and contents, the second adds behavioral guarantees. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 zero-parameter read-only summary with an output schema available, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it includes, its output format, and its behavioral guarantees. An agent can select and invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 parameter semantics are trivially satisfied; the rubric assigns baseline 4 for no-parameter tools. The description reinforces that the input is simply the current ticket queue.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('plain-text summary of the current ticket queue'), enumerating contents: total open tickets, SLA risk, and category/priority/status breakdown. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings that only list tickets, report SLA breaches, or break down categories separately.

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 a clear usage context: 'the kind of summary you'd post to a team channel each morning' implies routine consolidated snapshots rather than ad-hoc queries. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the morning-summary framing is enough guidance for an agent.

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