get_briefing_edition

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: it mirrors get_briefing's shape and defaults, and crucially discloses that a runId for a failed or still-generating run returns successfully with meta.status set and item null — 'an answer, not an error.' It also explains the tickets counters (opened, commented, alreadyOnBoard, recheckedUnchanged) and the unmeasured-ticket edge case.

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 core purpose and key routing (past vs current, tickets board) are front-loaded in the opening sentences, and the sentences are dense with distinct facts. It runs long, however, and the tickets explanation is partly restated inside the `sections` parameter description, so not every word is unique to this field.

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 and four parameters, the description carries the full burden and does so: it describes the return shape ('same shape as get_briefing'), the run-status edge case, where recommendations actually live (tickets, not item), and how ticket state should be read. Nothing material an agent needs to call or interpret the result is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the per-parameter schema text is itself rich, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds semantic value: guidance to read the response's `contains` array rather than guess which sections exist, the note that sections are added only when the question needs them, and the warning that includeCharts=false omits underlying numbers. Much of the section vocabulary is duplicated from the schema, which keeps this from a 5.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get one past Strategic Briefing edition in full'), names the retrieval key (runId, from get_briefing_history), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_briefing ('For the current state use get_briefing'). An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives the exact trigger ('read or quote a specific past edition — including the last readable one when get_briefing reports a running or failed status') and the explicit alternative for the live case. It also routes the agent to the tickets board rather than the edition when the question is about follow-up actions.

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