get_summary

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real behavioral traits: cost ('free') and payload weight ('small'). It stops there, saying nothing about permissions, caching/freshness, or rate limits, so a mutation-free read tool is left partially characterized.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the two most decision-relevant adjectives ('free, small') before the payload description. No filler, though the fragment style is terse even by tool-description standards.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, it covers what is returned and why you would want it, which is close to sufficient. It omits any relationship to get_briefing/get_page and gives no hint about freshness or where the briefing key originates, so an agent must still guess at wiring.

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% and the single 'key' parameter is documented in the schema (e.g. 'world'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about valid key values or how keys relate to sibling tools.

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?

It names the resource and the exact payload ('headlines and one-line summaries of a briefing'), so an agent knows what comes back. It does not name any sibling, but the adjective 'small' implicitly positions it against the fuller get_briefing, so this sits at clear-purpose-but-no-explicit-differentiation.

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 parenthetical 'for widgets and quick reads' supplies a usage context, which is more than nothing. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_briefing, get_page or render_briefing, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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