get_brief_grounding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It makes the behavioral contract clear enough: the tool returns factual grounding 'as DATA', the agent must do the reasoning, every reference must be 'traceable to a receipt', and no performance predictions are allowed. It does not explicitly say 'read-only', but 'Get... as DATA' strongly implies retrieval without mutation.

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 dense, but it front-loads the core purpose and then adds useful workflow constraints. The parentheticals and capitalized terms make it a bit run-on, but nearly every clause carries functional information rather than 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?

Given a single-parameter input and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it explains what the grounding contains, who writes the final brief, and what guardrails apply. It does not fully spell out the exact raw return shape of the tool, but the schema and described workflow are sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema has one required parameter, slate_item_id, and the schema description already fully covers it: 'The slate item id to brief.' The description reinforces the usage context by referencing 'write the brief for #2', but it adds no new parameter-level semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is 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 clearly identifies the tool's verb and resource: "Get the receipt-bound GROUNDING for a slate item's brief" and enumerates exactly what data is returned. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by saying 'Prefer this over generate_creative_brief — you author, not a server model.'

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 tool gives explicit trigger phrases: 'Use when the marketer says "write the brief for #2" / "turn that into a brief"'. It also provides an explicit alternative comparison, naming generate_creative_brief and explaining why this tool should be preferred.

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