Search Intelligence

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by calling the corpus live and saying results are cited records, but it does not disclose result-shaping behavior such as ranking, deduplication, or whether snippets are returned.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The scope and return type are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the key querying behavior without redundancy.

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 the output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential behavior, scope, and cited-result nature. It does not explain how to choose this tool over semantic_search, but that gap is already captured in usage guidelines and does not make the definition incomplete for calling the tool.

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 q, limit, query, and corpus. The description only adds that this is natural-language semantic search and lists corpus categories, which mirrors the schema's corpus examples rather than adding new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action and resource: semantic search over the DC Hub live intelligence corpus, enumerating the corpus contents (news, M&A deals, facilities, market narratives) and noting that results are cited records. It is clear at call time, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling semantic_search, so it misses the top bar.

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 when to use the tool: when a user asks a natural-language question against the intelligence corpus, rather than a structured fact lookup. It does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as search_facilities, get_market_intel, or semantic_search, so routing guidance is only implicit.

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