srgssr_daily_briefing

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

Describes parallel fetching (asyncio.gather) and graceful degradation with ToolErrorResponse in the event one source fails, providing behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations. This sets accurate expectations for error handling and performance.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured with use_case and important_notes sections, making it scannable. Every sentence adds value: purpose, rationale, limitations, and a concrete example.

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?

Covers purpose, use case, constraints (EPG only for specific units), failure behavior, and provides an example. Given that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers all essential behavioral and contextual aspects of the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially via a full example (business_unit='srf', channel_id='srf-1', etc.) and contextual notes about EPG availability for certain units. However, it does not explicitly explain each parameter's meaning, relying on inference from the example and tool purpose.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Aggregiertes Tagesbriefing: kombiniert die 24-Stunden-Wettervorhersage von SRF Meteo mit dem EPG-Tagesprogramm eines SRG SSR TV- oder Radiosenders.' It uses a specific verb (kombiniert) and names both integrated resources, distinguishing it from individual weather/EPG sibling tools.

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 gives a use case ('«Wetter + Programm für heute Abend»: Abendplanung, redaktionelle Tages-Briefings') and explains that one call replaces two sequential roundtrips ('ein einzelner Tool-Call genügt statt zweier sequentieller Roundtrips'). It also notes an exclusion: EPG only for SRF, RTS, and RSI, guiding when not to use the tool.

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