Write a strategy brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-mutating read, and 'Get a written brief' is consistent with that. However, the description adds almost nothing beyond the annotation: it does not say whether this triggers a costly generation, how long it takes, or what the brief contains. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is the minimum acceptable.

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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a generative tool.

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 is the only source of return-value information, and 'written brief on ad strategy' gives a coarse but usable sense of the output. It omits how the target brand is determined and whether a saved brand is a prerequisite, which matters given the adjacent get_my_brand/save_my_brand tools.

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, which normally sets a baseline of 4, but the description's phrase 'one brand's' implies a brand selector or at least a scope decision that the empty schema does not resolve. It never explains whether the brand comes from saved state (get_my_brand/save_my_brand) or is chosen some other way, so the zero-param baseline is not fully earned.

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 concrete verb-plus-resource: producing a written brief on one brand's ad strategy. It is distinguishable from data-retrieval siblings like get_brand_stats or get_brand_ads, since it yields prose analysis rather than raw numbers. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with adjacent tools such as compare_brands or revise_video_brief.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and names no alternatives among the many siblings. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to call this instead of get_brand_stats, compare_brands, or revise_video_brief.

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