Check a call brief

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the return payload (ok, the brief as it would be placed, blocking problems, how many earlier calls' notes it starts with) and the failure mode where missing fields return brief_incomplete plus a question to ask the user. It also confirms the central safety property — no call is placed and no meeting is joined.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and closing with the usage rule. Every sentence earns its place, though the second sentence is dense with a four-part enumeration of return content.

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 20-parameter, deeply nested brief schema with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and the key failure mode, so an agent knows enough to call and interpret it. It omits minor operational details (idempotency, cost/rate-limit interaction with start_call) but nothing critical.

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 95%, so the schema already carries parameter meaning; the description adds only indirect hints (what a 'refused number' or 'missing setup' problem means) rather than field-level syntax or format guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Validate a brief') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling it most resembles by saying it runs the checks 'exactly as start_call would, without placing a phone call or joining a meeting.' An agent can tell it apart from start_call without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger ('Use it when unsure whether a brief is complete') and neutralizes the main reason to skip it by noting 'start_call runs the same checks itself,' which is an effective when-not-use statement. No inference required.

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