get_contact_brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: read-only operation and that message bodies are excluded. However, it says nothing about whether it makes network calls, latency/cost of building the brief, permissions required, or what the brief actually contains.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the what and appending the safety/scope constraint. Every clause earns its place.

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 4-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is thin: it omits parameter meaning entirely and never says what the brief contains (sections, fields) or how the limit bounds output. The read-only/body-exclusion note is the only substantive addition.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It never explains that 'email' identifies the contact, what 'account' scopes, how 'limit' bounds recent summaries, or what 'mailbox' selects.

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?

States a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('contact brief'), plus the sources it composes: saved relationship context and recent inbox summaries. This distinguishes it in spirit from get_contact_context (raw stored context) and get_daily_briefing, but it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'from saved relationship context and recent inbox summaries' hints at aggregation, but there is no statement of when to call this versus get_contact_context or get_daily_briefing, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the routing.

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