reviews_ai__daily_briefing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description redundantly states 'Read-only', adding no contradiction. The description adds valuable context by stating the trend is 'computed deterministically' and includes an instruction for summarization. It does not disclose further limitations, but with annotations covering safety, this is sufficient.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by the summarization instruction and read-only note. Every clause adds value; no wasted words.

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 the presence of an output schema and full parameter docs, the description covers the tool's functionality and even tells the agent how to use the result. The deterministic computation note prevents ambiguity about the trend calculation. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, providing definitions for app_id and days, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'last N days' echoes the days parameter without adding syntax or format details. No additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema is provided.

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 explicitly states the tool fetches reviews for an app over a lookback window with volume and rating trend, and instructs the agent to produce a summary. This is a specific verb-resource pair with clear scope, distinguishing it from generic review listing tools. The 'Read-only' tag reinforces its purpose.

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 clearly implies the use case: generating a daily briefing from recent reviews, with a directive to summarize. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is unambiguous. Given the rich sibling list including reviews_ai__triage and drafts, a direct comparison would have earned a 5.

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