get_briefed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it profiles strategies, searches today's news, writes a digest with connections to positions and edges, and notes credit costs. No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches the behavioral model.

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?

The description is concise: two short paragraphs with the first sentence immediately stating the purpose. Every sentence adds relevant information (profiling, searching, writing, format, requirements, cost). No fluff, well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given no parameters but an output schema (existence noted), the description covers input requirements (5 edges, credits), processing steps, and output format features. It fully prepares the agent to invoke the tool correctly, without needing to see the output schema.

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 are zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage. The description adds context about what the briefing includes (e.g., '↳ line tying it to your actual positions and edges'), which goes beyond the empty schema. Since no parameters exist, the baseline is 4, and the description provides additional value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a personalized market news briefing based on your validated edge library.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search' and 'varrd_ai' by specializing in personalized briefing generation. The verb 'Get' combined with specific resource 'personalized market news briefing' makes the action 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 description provides explicit prerequisites ('Requires at least 5 strong edges in your library') and a cost constraint ('Costs credits'), guiding the agent on when to use this tool. It implies use when the user has sufficient edges and wants a briefing, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though sibling names offer some context.

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