daily_briefing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It helpfully signals that output is a 'prioritized overview' combining three sources, which hints at return shape. However, it omits the time window covered, the prioritization criteria, and any auth or latency/rate-limit behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, the aggregate output, and the three input domains with no filler. Nothing is wasted.

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 no-input, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately conveys what the caller receives (email highlights, calendar events, task status, prioritized). The main omission is the temporal scope of the briefing, which an agent would likely need.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-related ambiguity exists.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a composite resource ('daily briefing'), then enumerates the three constituent sources (email highlights, calendar events, task status). An agent can tell it is an aggregation tool rather than a raw reader, though it never explicitly names read_inbox/get_calendar/get_tasks as the alternatives it supersedes.

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?

There is no stated when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to any sibling. The aggregation framing implies it replaces three separate read calls, but that is left entirely to inference.

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