daily_briefing

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that `text` is display-ready while structured fields back it up, which tells the agent how to consume the output. It stops short of noting freshness/latency of the aggregation, but adds real value beyond the annotations.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the output shape. Slightly list-heavy but every enumerated item earns its place by defining scope. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is partly covered, and the description still adds the key split between human-readable `text` and structured fields. For a parameterless aggregator this is nearly complete; only freshness/latency of the aggregate is unstated.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing to document, and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed for the briefing.

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+resource ('One-call academic briefing') and enumerates exactly what it aggregates: due today/tomorrow, coming up, overdue, events, announcements, and a priority order. The 'one-call' framing distinguishes it from the granular siblings like upcoming_assignments or overdue_assignments that each cover a slice.

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 'one-call' framing implies this is the aggregate entry point vs. the specialized siblings, and the enumerated content clarifies its scope. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name an alternative (e.g., weekly_briefing for a longer horizon), so guidance is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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