query_press_conferences

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does clarify that this is a semantic search over ingested articles with defined sources and content types, but it does not describe the output format, ranking behavior beyond the schema, or limitations such as no exact-match guarantee, which would help an agent set expectations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core operation and scope are front-loaded, followed by concrete use cases. Every clause 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 tool is simple and the schema covers all three parameters, but there is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the agent will receive (e.g., matched document snippets, source links, relevance scores). It adequately covers what the tool searches over and why to use it, but the return shape is left implicit.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds context about the overall semantic-search behavior and the 'recent' emphasis, which loosely relates to recency_weight, but it does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific operation ('Semantic search'), a clear resource ('Premier League press conference summaries, match reports, and player injury/availability updates'), and identifies the data sources. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool query_historical_stats, which is about historical statistics rather than news, quotes, and injury updates.

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 description explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Use this to find recent quotes, injury news, or manager/team news.' It provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the sibling alternative by name.

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