search_briefs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clarifies that the search is semantic and that content is bilingual, with lang restricted to 'en' or 'tl'. It does not explain ranking, matching behavior, or whether results are filtered by language, but for a read-only search tool this is minimally adequate.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the most important parameter constraint (lang values) without unnecessary detail.

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 search tool with an output schema and defaults for k and lang, the description is usable but not fully complete. It covers the corpus scope and language values, but lacks parameter semantics for query and k and gives no routing guidance among sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It only documents the lang parameter values ('en' or 'tl'). It does not explain the required query parameter or what k represents, leaving important parameter meaning to inference.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Semantic search over 1,710 bilingual public-safety briefs.' This distinguishes it from exact retrieval tools like get_brief by explicitly labeling it as semantic search, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of run_sql, get_schema, get_brief, or glossary_lookup. There are no exclusions, alternative conditions, or scenario-based hints.

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