daily_brief_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it enumerates the four status states, explains what result and error hold, and warns that 'unknown' means a bad or expired id. It omits whether the call is idempotent/read-only or how long a job survives, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two compact blocks: the action sentence first, then a status-to-outcome mapping. Every clause is load-bearing and no sentence is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values — and it does, mapping each status to the field that carries the payload and noting that error holds only the exception type name. For a one-parameter polling tool this is complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the single job_id parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It implies the id originates from daily_brief_start and that an expired id yields 'unknown', but never states the id's format or where exactly to obtain it — partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (a daily_brief_start job, by id), and explicitly ties itself to the sibling tool that produces the id. An agent can distinguish it from daily_brief and daily_brief_start without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance embedded in the status semantics: 'running (keep polling)' tells the agent to call again, while 'done' tells it to stop and read result. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name an alternative retrieval path, so it falls short of a 5.

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