Forensic Brief

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals safety. The description adds transparency by detailing the internal steps (e.g., 'Runs coverage gap analysis, pulls best archive colours, checks for anachronisms') and mentioning it uses Claude. No behavioral contradictions exist.

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 the key purpose ('The money endpoint') and is well-structured. It lists all components efficiently without unnecessary words. Though slightly long, each sentence contributes value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, many sub-steps), the description thoroughly explains what it does, its output ('complete deliverable package ready for PDF or editorial use'), and tone options. The presence of an output schema and high parameter coverage complement this.

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 the baseline is 3. The description partially lists input parameters ('title, audience, themes, archives, period, tone') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It does not compensate for missing parameters in the list, but schema covers all.

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 explicitly states 'One call returns a complete forensic colour brief' and lists specific analyses it performs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating it replaces chaining multiple tools like coverage_gap and archive_report_brief.

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 clearly says 'This replaces chaining coverage_gap + archive_report_brief + anachronism_guard + resonance_index + evidence_gap separately,' providing explicit context for when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling list and this replacement hint are sufficient.

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