seo_list_briefs

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: default returns all statuses, statusBreakdown matches dashboard counts, in-flight briefs may not appear, and response shapes for each detail level. This goes far beyond minimal requirements.

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 dense but well-structured and front-loaded with the most critical default behavior. Every sentence provides necessary context for a complex 9-parameter tool, with no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the response shape, detail levels, filters, pagination, and edge cases like in-flight briefs. It is complete for a list tool of this complexity.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning: clarifies status/type CSV formats, explains detail levels with specific fields, describes pagination via cursor, and defines the response shape. This is substantial added 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns all briefs across every status, with specific scope and behavior. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from seo_get_brief for inspecting a single brief, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: do NOT add a status filter unless asked, check list_operations/get_job for in-flight generation, and use seo_get_brief for single-brief details. This gives clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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