daily_report

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

Goes well beyond annotations: agent mode only reads today's submitted verdicts (nothing re-run), backend mode runs the committee itself, requires a backend LLM key, and takes minutes. It also discloses the `missing_verdicts` failure semantics. These auth, latency, and side-effect details explain why readOnlyHint=false and are exactly the context an agent needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every subsequent sentence carries load-bearing workflow or failure information. Slightly dense (backticks, arrows, mode labels) and the bare "roles" step is ambiguous, but there is no filler to cut.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be re-explained, and the description covers the mode split, prerequisites, key requirement, latency, and failure handling. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is absent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter meaning is missing because the schema is empty.

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 ("Assemble") and resource ("today's daily report") and enumerates the report's contents (portfolio, verdicts, performance, holdings digest), plus the return artifact (`full_report` Markdown). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like decisions, run_committee, and status.

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 separates two operating modes and gives the exact precondition for agent mode (run prepare_committee → roles → submit_committee for every target asset FIRST) versus backend mode. It also tells the agent what to do with `missing_verdicts` entries (treat as failure and report). No inference required.

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