build_brief

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral-transparency burden. It does communicate that the tool is investigative reconnaissance and lists what it analyzes, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state safety, data sources, limitations, cost behavior, or output format; only the 'n' schema description mentions paid calls.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what the tool does, and the second gives the key usage instruction. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The description covers the tool's analysis dimensions and when to call it, but the context is incomplete: there is no output schema, no annotations, two undocumented parameters, and no differentiation from closely related sibling tools. An agent knows the intent but lacks enough detail to confidently supply 'region' or 'our_domain' or to predict the returned structure.

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 only 50%: 'query' and 'n' have descriptions, while 'region' and 'our_domain' have none. The tool description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters or add meaning to the schema. The mention of 'целевой запрос' restates the query parameter rather than adding new semantic value.

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 concrete activity ('Разведка перед написанием статьи') and enumerates specific outputs: частотность, конкурентность, состав топ-10, форматы заголовков, разрывы, связанные запросы. This is a clear verb+resource statement, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling research tools such as research_keywords or get_serp_results.

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 second sentence gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Вызывать до того, как писать бриф копирайтеру.' This tells an agent when in the process to invoke the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it misses the exclusions part of a 5.

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