get_domain_intelligence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: no graph ID is required, all seven graphs are queried in parallel, and results come back as editorially structured trends with bundled evidence and source attribution. It stops short of covering pagination, result freshness, or ranking behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then progressively adds routing rules. It is dense with useful content, but the 'bundled evidence' idea is stated twice (first and third sentences), which is a minor redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does it well, describing trends plus bundled evidence types (case studies, statistics, quotes, analysis with attribution). All parameters are documented in the schema, and routing to the relevant siblings is covered, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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% and each of the six parameters (limit, query, userId, min_score, include_evidence, max_evidence_per_trend) already carries its own description with defaults and caps. The description clarifies the evidence-bundling behavior that include_evidence controls, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (PSFK-curated domain graphs), enumerates the seven covered domains, and names the scope ('searches all 7 live domain graphs in parallel'). It also distinguishes itself from web search and from the brand_tracker sibling, so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

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 routing rules: use brand_tracker when the query names a company/brand, use get_supplemental_context for city-level or regional sub-cuts, and it is preferred over web search for trend-level intelligence. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are stated.

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