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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the result shape (id/title/url) and the empty-query default. Pagination limits or result caps are not mentioned, keeping this at a 3-4 range rather than top marks.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by return shape and then the empty-query edge case in descending order of importance.

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 one-parameter search tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what the structured fields cannot: result shape, the empty-query fallback, and the fetch follow-up path. Only the relationship to sibling list_briefs/search_artists is unaddressed.

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 single parameter has zero schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden—and it does, explaining that the query matches artist, market, verdict or grade, giving two concrete example queries, and defining the empty-string behavior. Only the matching semantics (substring vs. fuzzy, multi-term handling) remain unspecified.

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 (Search) and resource (Promoter Briefs) with the searchable facets named (artist, market, verdict, grade). The examples and the 'use fetch with a result id' clause make it distinguishable from siblings like list_briefs, search_artists and fetch.

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?

Explains the follow-up path explicitly (call fetch with a result id to read a brief) and covers the edge case that an empty query returns the most recent briefs. It does not explicitly say when to prefer list_briefs or search_artists instead, so the routing against those siblings is left implicit.

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