content_brief_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Read-only; no ranking guarantee' and explains the fallback behavior (refresh-vs-new, not full SERP), providing context beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction between description and annotations.

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 main purpose and outputs, then covers parameters and fallback behavior. It is dense but not overly long; every sentence adds value. Slightly verbose due to parenthetical clarifications, but overall well-structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (heading union, median word count, schema types, entity coverage, GEO directives). It also covers the two operational modes and parameter nuances. For a tool with 5 parameters, it is reasonably complete, though it could briefly mention the format of the return value.

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 adds context for how parameters interact (e.g., 'competitor_urls' vs fallback, 'days' as GSC window) but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema descriptions for individual parameters.

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's purpose: 'Gather the hard evidence for a content brief' and lists specific outputs (heading union, median word count, schema types, entity coverage, directives). It uses specific verbs ('fetch', 'return') and distinguishes itself by focusing on content brief evidence, which differentiates it from sibling tools like gsc_search_analytics or content_opportunities.

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 explicitly explains when to use each mode: 'Pass competitor_urls for a true brief; with none it falls back to your own ranking pages via GSC (refresh-vs-new, NOT the full SERP).' It also provides context about integration with other components ('The host writes the brief prose from this; SEOMonster supplies rules + evidence'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings.

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