trends_briefing

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=true, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that source content is in original language and instructs the agent to translate for the user while preserving proper nouns and IDs. This goes beyond annotations, providing explicit presentation behavior.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, followed by a PRESENTATION section with translation instructions. While structured, it is somewhat verbose; the translation detail could be shorter without losing clarity. It earns its place but could be more concise.

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 has 5 parameters and a moderate complexity, the description lacks detailed parameter guidance. The output schema is present, so return values need no explanation, but the lack of parameter semantics makes the description incomplete for proper 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?

The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only explains the 'topic' parameter's optionality and effect, leaving 'days', 'per_source_limit', 'arxiv_categories', and 'pubmed_query' completely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to set these parameters correctly.

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 it generates a 'newspaper-style weekly briefing across all enabled sources' and specifies when to use it ('when user asks for 주간 뉴스 / weekly news / briefing'). It provides a specific verb and resource, and the usage hint helps differentiate from general search tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'trends_digest'.

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?

It explicitly advises using this tool for '주간 뉴스 / weekly news / briefing' requests, which gives clear context. However, it omits when not to use it, and does not mention alternatives or exclusions, limiting its effectiveness in guiding tool selection among siblings.

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