veroq_brief

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses cost (1 credit) and details of return value (body text, sources, entities, etc.). It implies readonly operation but does not explicitly state it's nondestructive.

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?

Description is well-structured with sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE). It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds 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?

No output schema, so description fully explains return content (body, sources, entities, counter-argument, provenance). For a 2-parameter tool, this is complete and also includes cost information.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with minimal descriptions. The description adds a concrete example for brief_id and clarifies include_full_text's effect, but overall adds limited value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get full details for a specific intelligence brief by its ID.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from siblings by noting it's used after search/feed to read full content.

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?

Explicitly says 'WHEN TO USE: After finding a brief via search/feed, use this to read the full body...' This provides clear context for when to use, though alternatives like veroq_search or veroq_feed are not named.

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