digest

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already cover the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond annotations by disclosing the aggregation scope (which data categories are collected) and that the payload includes a display-ready markdown rendering.

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 core intent is front-loaded ('What happened in the research over the last days') and the content list follows as supporting detail. The sentence is long but every clause maps to an actual data category; the trailing markdown note is a small redundancy given the output schema.

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?

Return shape is covered by the output schema and the sole parameter by the schema, so the description need not restate them. What remains thin is disambiguation from sibling recap tools (what_changed, brief, timeline), which is the one thing an agent still has to guess.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented in the schema with a default of 7 and a 1–90 range. The description only gestures at it with 'over the last days' and adds no format, range, or default information, so the 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 resource — a research digest — and enumerates its contents (new alerts by thesis, status/confidence changes, due theses, audit counts, scorecard moves, activity), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from similarly-scoped siblings such as what_changed, timeline, or brief.

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?

'What happened in the research over the last days' implies a periodic recap use case, including a time window, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. With what_changed and timeline in the sibling list, the agent must infer which one to pick.

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