doj_press_releases

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It does: dataset scale, coverage of all divisions, content categories, and available filtering/sorting. No contradictions with annotations.

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: core search purpose first, then dataset scope, then filter capability, then components/topics. Every sentence adds useful context without fluff.

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?

For a read-only search tool with no required parameters, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, this description supplies enough context about dataset coverage, content, and filtering options. It does not describe the response format, but no output schema exists and the main missing guidance is alternative-tool routing rather than call prerequisites.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents all five parameters, including title keyword examples. The description adds broad topic/component lists that can inform title filters, but it mostly restates filter-by-title-and-sort behavior rather than adding new parameter-level detail.

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?

Description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Search DOJ press releases,' and adds dataset scope (262K+ records, all DOJ divisions). It also lists included content types, making it distinct from siblings like doj_press_release_detail and doj_blog_entries.

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 gives clear context for when this search tool is appropriate: retrieving DOJ press releases by title keyword and date across known components and topics. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as pointing to doj_press_release_detail for full details or doj_blog_entries for blog content.

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