get_pre_brief

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

Annotations indicate read-only and open-world operations, which the description aligns with by describing a generation/preparation function rather than a destructive action. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the automatic calendar checking feature, mentions personalization based on buyer context, and describes the specific output components (talk track, discovery questions, etc.) that the tool produces.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that each serve clear purposes: the first explains what the tool generates, the second explains how to use it. There's no wasted language, and key information is front-loaded about the tool's output before mentioning the input mechanism.

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 comprehensive parameter documentation and appropriate annotations, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, usage context, and output format. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by detailing what the brief contains. A perfect score would require more specifics about the generated content format.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'who you're meeting with' which corresponds to companyName/contactName parameters, but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the tool's purpose: generating pre-call preparation materials including talk track, discovery questions, anticipated objections, and meeting objectives. It specifies the resource (pre-call prep) and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on meeting-specific briefs rather than account plans, competitive positioning, or other sales intelligence functions.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: before meetings to avoid 'walking in cold.' It mentions the automatic calendar integration feature but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for different scenarios, which prevents a perfect score.

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