get_brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a read-only fetch of one barangay brief and documents that lang accepts 'en' or 'tl'. It does not cover edge cases like missing pcode, but the output schema handles return structure.

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 two short sentences with zero filler. The main purpose is stated first, followed by the only parameter detail worth calling out.

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 simple two-parameter read operation with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. The only notable gap is not explicitly addressing when to prefer get_brief over search_briefs, though the direct pcode lookup makes this reasonably inferable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: pcode is explained as the PSGC code, and lang is given explicit valid values 'en' or 'tl'. This is meaningful added context beyond the bare schema property names.

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 ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('one barangay's brief'), and a unique identifier ('PSGC pcode'). It clearly distinguishes this from a search tool like search_briefs by implying a direct lookup of a single record.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you have a PSGC pcode and need a single brief, while search_briefs is likely for finding briefs by text. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or direct comparison with sibling tools.

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