competitive_brief_run_full_brief

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It only mentions generating a brief and returning JSON, without covering caching, data sources, auth, processing duration, or side effects. The presence of a force_refresh parameter hints at caching but is not explained in the description.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, given the tool has 14 parameters, the description could benefit from slightly more context without becoming verbose. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The tool has 14 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools. The description does not explain what constitutes a 'full brief,' how the output JSON is structured, or how this tool differs from similar research tools. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand its capabilities.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond stating it generates a full brief. Baseline 3 is appropriate as description does not degrade but adds minimal value.

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 clearly states the tool generates a comprehensive competitive intelligence brief with all sections and returns full JSON output. The verb 'generate' and resource 'competitive intelligence brief' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like competitive_brief_render_brief_html.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many research tools, but the description offers no context about when this specific tool is preferred, such as for generating a complete brief vs. other partial research tools.

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