brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered structurally. The description adds real value by disclosing what the tool aggregates (theses, claims, open alerts, ruled-out ideas) and that it performs entity spotting on free text, but says nothing about cost, latency, or the scope of the graph digest. Adequate rather than rich.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose before the enumeration of what gets recalled. Every clause carries information, though the mid-sentence list of four record types makes it denser than ideal for one read.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose. For a one-optional-parameter aggregator, the description covers trigger, inputs, what is gathered, and the empty-input case — nothing an agent needs in order to call it is missing.

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 a single optional parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already carries the meaning ('the user's question or company names (leave blank for the digest only)'). The description restates the same duality ('spots known companies in `text`') without adding syntax, formatting, or matching-behavior detail. Baseline 3 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 verb and resource — a 'one-call briefing' that scans text for known companies, recalls theses/claims/alerts/ruled-out ideas, and returns a graph digest. That is far more informative than the opaque name 'brief'. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from near-neighbors like digest, recall, or search, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'At the start of a turn' gives a clear situational trigger, and the schema-level note that blank text yields digest-only defines the degenerate case. However, it never states when to prefer the sibling tools (recall, digest, search) instead, nor any exclusions — so it's clear context without routing guidance.

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