get_report_intelligence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the default output is 'an executive 5-pillar analyst briefing with cross-graph validation' and no graph ID is required. It stops short of rate-limit/auth detail, but with annotations carrying the rest a 4 is warranted.

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 purpose is front-loaded and each subsequent sentence carries routing or scope information, so most content earns its place. It is dense and slightly long, but there is little waste.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, and the shape of the return (5-pillar briefing vs. raw structured records). An agent has enough to call it correctly, though a note on the non-idempotent/read behavior of repeated queries is absent.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters including the view enum, limit, and min_score defaults. The description adds only marginal parameter meaning (implying the editorial default mode and that no graph ID is needed). Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('searches industry report knowledge graphs ... for published forecasts, projections, and whitepaper findings') and names the data sources. It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings get_domain_intelligence, search_statistics, and brand_tracker, 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?

Provides explicit when-not guidance ('Does NOT return living consumer domain trends ... use get_domain_intelligence') and routes to the correct alternative for a specific condition ('When the query names a specific company or brand, brand_tracker is the entry point'). Nothing is left to inference.

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