Daily Brief

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's job is adding content-level detail — and it does, by naming the exact payload of each mode and noting the person mode narrows scope. It stops short of noting ordering, volume limits beyond 'count', or latency, so not a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core value proposition, then the two modes, then the routing advice. No filler and no repetition of annotation or schema content.

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 no output schema, the description sensibly enumerates the returned sections, which is the key missing structured information. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and what happens when a section is empty, but nothing that would cause a misinvocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining that 'person' changes the whole behavior of the call rather than being a filter — 'who they are and your recent mail and chats involving them' — which is semantics the bare schema field doesn't convey.

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+resource ('assembles a catch-up') and enumerates exactly what gets assembled (meetings, unread mail, chats, tasks, transcripts), which cleanly separates it from the single-domain siblings ms_calendar, ms_mail, ms_chat and ms_tasks.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this instead of calling four or five tools separately,' and gives the mode-selection rule: no arguments = the default daily catch-up, with person = a single-person catch-up. An agent knows both when to pick it and how to switch modes.

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