seo_get_brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the default returns full detail and specifies exact fields for medium and short detail levels, which is valuable. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error behavior, but the word 'Fetch' implies a non-mutating action and the return detail is thorough.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the primary purpose and then providing detail options and usage context. It is slightly long due to spelling out field lists, but every sentence serves a distinct purpose, so it remains efficient.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does a great job of explaining return values for each detail level. It also covers the default behavior and usage context with sibling tools. For a read tool with three parameters, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by listing concrete fields returned for each detail value, which goes beyond the schema's generic phrases. It also reiterates the default, but the field lists are a meaningful addition.

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 fetches a single SeoBrief by id and lists the included content (briefData, status, roadmap item, cluster). It distinguishes itself from the sibling seo_list_briefs by focusing on a single item and from seo_edit_brief/approve by framing it as an inspection step.

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 says to use this tool before refining with seo_edit_brief or approving with seo_approve_briefs, providing clear context and alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with listing tools, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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