srgssr_daily_briefing

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds critical behavioral details: parallel fetching via asyncio.gather and graceful degradation when one source fails, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 concise (~100 words) and well-structured into a main paragraph, use_case, important_notes, and example. Every section adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool’s moderate complexity (combined data sources), the presence of an output schema (not shown but known), and rich annotations, the description covers parallel fetching, graceful degradation, and usage context. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0% per context signals, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description adds minimal param semantics: the example shows latitude/longitude values but does not explain date format, channel_id pattern, or the business_unit enum meanings beyond the schema's titles. It compensates somewhat but insufficiently for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 combines 24-hour weather forecast with EPG program data, using a single call instead of two. The name 'daily_briefing' and title 'Tagesbriefing (Wetter + EPG)' accurately reflect this composite purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like weather_forecast_24h and epg_get_programs by emphasizing the aggregation.

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 description includes a use_case explaining when to use it (evening planning, editorial briefings) and important notes about EPG availability only for SRF, RTS, and RSI, plus behavior on source failure. It implicitly contrasts with separate weather and EPG tools, guiding the agent to prefer this composite when both are needed.

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