brainstorm_topic

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: the traversal-based discovery mechanism and the shape of the result ('structured brainstorm map with territories'). It stops short of explaining depth tradeoffs or how many territories/connections come back, which with no output schema would have been valuable.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then differentiation, then usage, then return. Zero filler, though the final return sentence is slightly vague relative to how much space it takes.

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?

Read-only, three-parameter, no output schema and no nested objects, so complexity is low and annotations plus a full-coverage schema carry most of the load. The description is complete enough to invoke correctly; the only real gap is a slightly under-specified account of what the returned brainstorm map contains.

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%: depth, query, and userId all carry their own descriptions including depth's 1-vs-2 semantics and default. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema is correct.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (explore/brainstorm a topic) and explicitly frames the mechanism (knowledge graph connections) and output (structured brainstorm map with territories). It also differentiates from the 'search' sibling by contrasting 'finds what matches' with 'discovers what CONNECTS', so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use triggers are listed ('brainstorm, explore adjacencies, find inspiration, or understand the landscape') and it names the alternative (search) with the condition that distinguishes them. This is close to the ideal when/when-not/alternative pattern, with only the near-neighbor discover_adjacent_trends left unaddressed.

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