get_specialist_intelligence

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a deprecation notice steering toward preferred tools, and the fact that no graph ID is required despite being a graph search. It does not address auth, rate limits, or pagination, so it stops short of a 5.

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 dense but well front-loaded: deprecation warning first, then purpose, then routing exclusions. Every clause carries routing or scope information, though the parenthetical list of curators is slightly ornamental and could be trimmed.

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?

Given six parameters (one required), no output schema, and a crowded sibling set of similarly named intelligence tools (get_domain_intelligence, get_expert_intelligence, get_report_intelligence, search_graph), the description supplies everything needed to select and call it: scope, return type, exclusions, and named alternatives. Nothing further is required.

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 all six parameters (limit, query, userId, min_score, include_evidence, max_evidence_per_trend) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the 'No graph ID needed' detail, which clarifies an absent parameter rather than explaining existing ones. Baseline 3 applies 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 specialist knowledge graphs curated by domain strategists, newsletters, and boutique studios') and names what it returns (specialist frameworks and analysis). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_domain_intelligence, search_statistics, and brand_tracker, so an agent can route 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?

Gives explicit alternatives with selection conditions: search_graph for topic-routed multi-graph searches, consult_human_agent/consult_analyst for direct strategist consultation, brand_tracker when a company/brand is named. It also states negative scope (not broad consumer trends, not standalone statistics), which is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs.

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