Get a briefing across all apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond structured fields: the aggregation spans 'all apps' rather than one app, and 'Pro feature' discloses an entitlement requirement that the schema and annotations do not express. It stops short of describing latency, rate limits, or result shape.

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?

Three compact fragments with no filler, and the most important information (what the briefing contains) is front-loaded before the positioning and gating notes. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the categories returned (version status, reviews, rejections, action items), which is enough for an agent to judge relevance. It could say more about scope limits (e.g. limits on app count) or ordering, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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?

There is one optional parameter (days) with 100% schema description coverage, including its default of 3. The description adds nothing about the lookback window, so the schema carries the full burden — the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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 names a specific artifact (a morning briefing) and enumerates its contents — version status, recent reviews, rejections, action items — while scoping it to 'all apps'. 'One call for full situational awareness' makes the aggregation role clear against single-purpose siblings like list_reviews, review_status, or release_version.

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?

'One call for full situational awareness' gives a clear condition for selecting this tool over the narrow sibling calls, and 'Morning briefing' frames the daily cadence. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the specific alternatives, but the aggregation framing is unambiguous.

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