get_pre_brief

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: it auto-resolves the calendar event, pulls buyer context, and discloses the exact contents of the generated brief — important since there is no output schema. "Writes" reads as "composes/drafts" for the user, consistent with a read-only get_ tool, so no contradiction.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded before the how-to-use clause. The middle list of brief contents is dense but each item is informative. "so you don't walk in cold" is mild marketing filler, the only real trim available.

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, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by enumerating what the brief contains. All five parameters are schema-documented and annotations cover the safety profile, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps: no latency/cost or freshness notes on the calendar lookup.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the auto-matching behavior of companyName and the eventId shortcut. The description's "say who you're meeting with" only restates the companyName semantics already in the schema, adding no format or precedence detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Writes your pre-call prep") and enumerates the concrete artifacts produced: talk track, buyer-tuned discovery questions, likely objections with rebuttals, and the meeting's single objective. It is far from a tautology. It stops short of naming or contrasting any sibling (e.g. get_persona_profile, get_account_plan), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

It gives clear invocation context: "Just say who you're meeting with — Andru checks your calendar automatically," which tells the agent the minimal input needed and that calendar lookup is implicit. It does not state when-not to use it or point to alternative prep tools, so no exclusion guidance.

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