policy_daily_brief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool is a read-only aggregation over already-ingested policies and describes the output categories (institution distribution, sentiment, key themes, briefing signals) plus JSON return. However, it does not address edge cases such as empty result handling or behavior when both date and days are supplied, so the disclosure is useful but incomplete.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's main purpose, followed by output details and use context. There is some minor redundancy ('政策每日要闻摘要' vs '政策要闻摘要') and informal jargon ('新闻摘要轮子'), but every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 an output schema present and full schema parameter coverage, the description does not need to restate return formatting. It provides the key contextual layer: intended consumers (frontend panel, scheduled tasks) and the nature of the aggregation output. It lacks a brief comparison to related policy tools, but that is not critical for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'date' concept with '指定日期' and '按日期聚合' but adds no details beyond the schema. It does not mention 'days' explicitly, though the schema already documents its conditional behavior.

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: aggregate already-collected policies by date and output a daily/specified-date policy news summary. It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like policy_search, policy_detail, and policy_timeline by focusing on date-based digest generation with institution distribution, sentiment, key themes, and briefing signals.

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 explicitly identifies the intended calling context: the frontend 'Daily News' panel or scheduled task broadcast. It gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name competing tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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