Get daily briefing

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses important behavior: sections that fail are collected under `warnings` rather than failing the whole call, and each data category has a specific time window (last two days, last week, next days_ahead). This gives the agent a clear model of partial-failure tolerance and data scoping.

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 a dense, single-sentence overview followed by a one-sentence behavioral note. Every listed item earns its place by defining the scope of the briefing, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It remains readable despite enumerating six distinct data categories.

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 two-parameter aggregate tool with an output schema, the description covers the input scope, parameter defaults, data windows, and partial-failure behavior. The main omissions – the exact `student` identifier format and explicit routing to more specific siblings – are minor given the output schema likely documents the return structure.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so well: it explains `student` as an optional scope ('for every student (or just `student`)') and `days_ahead` with its default and meaning ('due in the next `days_ahead` days'). The only gap is that the expected format of `student` (ID, name, etc.) is unspecified.

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 resource ('briefing') and frames it as a 'one-call overview', then enumerates exactly which data categories it returns: lessons, homework/exams, messages/notices, grades, and canteen menu. By positioning itself as an aggregate, it implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_* tools even without naming one.

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 implies an aggregate use case ('one-call overview') and shows the agent this is the tool to use for a consolidated daily snapshot. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over get_timetable, get_grades, or get_meals, nor does it give any when-not-to-use guidance. Alternatives are left to inference.

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