doj_press_releases

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds useful context about the data scale (262K+ records), lineage (all DOJ divisions, FBI, DEA, etc.), and content types (enforcement actions, indictments, settlements), but does not disclose response format, pagination behavior, or rate limits.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. Each sentence contributes value: scope (262K+ records, all divisions), content types, filtering/sorting capabilities, and example components/topics. No redundancy or filler.

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 moderate complexity (5 optional params, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what is searched, how to filter/sort, and what types of content are included. It does not describe the return format, but the lack of an output schema makes this a minor gap.

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%, with each parameter already well-described (e.g., 'Filter by title keyword: cybercrime, antitrust', 'Sort direction: DESC (newest first, default)'). The description only restates this capability without adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Search' and the resource 'DOJ press releases', immediately clarifying the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'doj_press_release_detail' by emphasizing its broad scope (all DOJ divisions, 262K+ records) and search-oriented capabilities.

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 clearly indicates this is for searching across all DOJ press releases, with filtering by title keyword and sorting by date. It provides context for when to use this tool but does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'doj_press_release_detail' for retrieving full details, nor does it state exclusions.

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