Create Comprehensive City Briefing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful traits such as broad source coverage, 10-20 second runtime, and country auto-detection, but it does not state read-only safety, auth requirements, rate limits, or failure handling.

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, then grouped source lists by country, and closes with usage and timing cues. The source enumerations are long but informative for setting expectations; there is little wasted text.

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 complex aggregator with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies source coverage, latency, and country handling. It leaves the exact briefing structure and error behavior unspecified, but gives enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description repeats country auto-detection and optional specification but adds no syntax or ambiguous-city details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Pull data from ALL available sources and assemble a structured executive briefing.' It states scope (city in US, UK, or Canada) and distinguishes itself from sibling query tools as the 'give me everything' tool, so an agent can identify it without opening the 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?

The phrase 'The give me everything tool' clearly signals when to use this broad aggregator over single-domain siblings. It also gives latency context (10-20 seconds). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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