generate_daily_brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful behavior beyond the name: no email is sent, the default lookback is 24 hours, and citations are included. It could go further on whether anything is persisted or whether credentials/permissions are needed, but it is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the most important behavioral caveat and the alternative. Every sentence contributes.

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?

For a read-only generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main things an agent needs: what it produces, the default range, and the critical 'does not email' caveat. It is slightly light on what the response looks like, but this is an acceptable gap given the schema already covers inputs.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description reinforces the 24h default that matches since_hours but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the input schema provides.

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 names a specific verb ('Generate') and a specific resource ('morning brief' summarizing recent wiki activity). It also cites the lookback default and content type, making the tool's role immediately clear while distinguishing it from generic search or list tools.

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 states what the tool does not do ('Does not email') and provides a concrete alternative ('use the web UI Settings → Daily Brief → Send Now'), giving the agent actionable when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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