get_daily_briefing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it is read-only in nature (summarizing emails and calendar counts) and constrains scope to 'unread emails and today's events across all accounts,' which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose return format details, potential rate limits, account aggregation behavior, or any edge cases (e.g., what happens with no events or emails).

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose on the first line. The comparative note about get_morning_briefing is valuable and earns its place. Minor redundancy exists between 'quick daily briefing summary' in the title line and 'lighter-weight version' phrasing, but this is negligible.

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?

There is no output schema specified at the top level, but the description does note it 'Returns: Summary of unread emails and today's events.' The context signal says 'Has output schema: true,' and the description adequately covers return value scope. For a zero-parameter, read-only summary tool with a sibling differentiation, the description is reasonably complete though it could mention page/result size limits.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description adequately conveys what data the tool returns without needing to explain any parameter syntax.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get a quick daily briefing summary') and clearly identifies what it shows ('email and calendar counts'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_morning_briefing by framing itself as a 'lighter-weight version,' which provides differentiation. However, it doesn't precisely name which sibling it differs from by explicit purpose boundaries beyond the one comparison.

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 when to use this tool by pointing to get_morning_briefing as the alternative for a 'full comprehensive briefing.' This creates a clear context for when this lightweight version is appropriate. However, it lacks explicit affirmative conditions for exactly when an agent should prefer this over other summary tools like get_briefing_summary or get_today_events.

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