Where is this brief in the spine?

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does imply a read-only inspection operation by saying it 'reports which ... exist'. However, it never explicitly states it is non-mutating, nor does it describe auth requirements, rate limits, or what the response payload looks like beyond 'names the next 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 sentences, both earning their place: the first states the behavior, the second supplies the pipeline context that makes the artifact list interpretable. The core behavior is front-loaded with zero filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the key missing context: the pipeline spine and the promise that the next tool is named. That largely compensates for the absence of a return schema, though a hint about the shape of the status report itself is still absent.

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?

There is a single parameter, brief_id, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, source, or constraint information beyond what the schema provides, which makes the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: it reports which artifacts (brief, human approval, transcript, generated pieces) exist for a given brief_id. It also enumerates the pipeline spine, which implicitly positions it against the sibling workflow tools. It stops short of naming a specific sibling it is not, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 spine ordering ('brief -> approve_contact -> run_interview -> generate_piece -> check_citations') gives clear context for when an agent should consult this tool: to determine where in the pipeline a brief currently sits. It also states the tool names the next tool to call, which is actionable guidance. No explicit when-not or exclusion conditions are given.

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