daily_digest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that execution spans all rules and that output is prioritized and Turkish, but says nothing about runtime cost, rate limits, or whether the run has side effects on the underlying data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But for a tool that aggregates seven sibling domains with three undocumented thresholds, this level of brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but that is the only gap covered. The three tuning parameters are undocumented and there is no routing guidance against seven siblings, leaving an agent unable to call this correctly without guessing.

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 0% and the description documents none of the three parameters (low_stock, sla_hours, return_cluster_min). Their defaults (5, 48, 3) are visible but their meaning and units are left entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a verb ('çalıştırır' / runs) and a deliverable ('önceliklendirilmiş Türkçe aksiyon listesi' / prioritized Turkish action list), which conveys the aggregate nature of the tool versus the single-concern siblings. However, 'tüm kuralları' (all rules) is undefined and never connects to the sibling domains (orders, returns, SLA, stock, reviews, prices), so an agent cannot tell exactly what is being aggregated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this digest over the individual sibling tools (list_orders, sla_breaches, stock_alerts, etc.), and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer that this is the umbrella tool from the name alone.

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