search_intelligence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to repeat safety. The description adds that it returns 'most relevant cited records' but does not elaborate on behavior beyond the annotation coverage. No contradictions.

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 sentences front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value and there is no wasted text.

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?

Given 4 parameters with full schema coverage and annotations present, the description is fairly complete. It explains the corpus scope and query method but does not detail return format or pagination, which is acceptable for a search tool without an output schema.

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 fully documents parameters. The description adds minor context (e.g., CSV for corpus allowed, default searches all) but does not significantly augment the schema meaning.

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 performs 'semantic search over DC Hub live intelligence corpus' including specific types (news, M&A deals, facilities, market analysis narratives). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_facilities' and 'semantic_search' by specifying the broad corpus and natural-language query capability.

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 implies usage for natural-language queries over the intelligence corpus but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search', 'search_facilities', or 'semantic_search'. There are no exclusions or when-not guidance.

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