Get Latest Debrief

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

The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool internally resolves the most recent date, which is genuinely useful beyond annotations. With readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false already declared, the safety profile is well covered. The description doesn't mention return format, but an output schema exists, lowering the burden.

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 a single, efficient sentence that covers purpose, the automatic date resolution behavior, and output detail level ('full detail'). Zero wasted words.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys what it returns ('full detail'), how the date is handled, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. Minor gap: it doesn't note what time period the 'latest' refers to, but this is a minor omission for a straightforward fetch tool.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so there are no parameters to document. With schema description coverage at 100% (vacuously, since there are no parameters), the baseline would be 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description correctly confirms no inputs are needed by stating it resolves the date for you.

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 the verb+resource: 'Get the most recent daily intelligence debrief in full detail.' It adds the useful nuance that the tool resolves the latest date for the agent, distinguishing it from a debrief tool requiring an explicit date parameter. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the 'resolves the latest date for you' clause differentiates it from other debrief-related tools.

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?

The description implies the use case (when you want the latest debrief without knowing/specifying a date), which provides reasonable context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name an alternative (e.g., a date-specific debrief tool if one existed). The implied usage is adequate but not explicit.

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