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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: newest-first ordering, that briefs are dated and cite public sources, and that no Debriefing account is required.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then filtering, then the no-arg default, then the auth note. No filler.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description only needs to supply intent and usage context, which it does: what is searched, how to filter, default behavior, and the no-account requirement. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it is missing.

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 67% and the description clarifies that the company parameter accepts a name, slug, or domain, extending the schema's examples. The limit parameter is left to the schema, whose max of 50 is self-explanatory.

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 (Searches) and resource (competitive briefs Debriefing publishes about named companies), plus the source domain and default ordering. This distinguishes it clearly from the singular get_public_brief sibling.

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 how to filter (by words and by company name/slug/domain) and that no arguments returns the newest briefs, plus that no account is needed. It never explicitly routes to alternatives like get_public_brief or other search_* tools, so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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