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

Annotations already convey the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the call. The description adds a useful authorization scope ('authenticated customer's') and freshness ('current'), but goes not disclose any further behavioral traits such as pagination or data freshness limits.

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?

A single sentence with a front-loaded verb and a compact enumeration of contents. There are no redundancies or filler words, and the length is appropriate for the amount of information conveyed.

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 one well-shaped UUID parameter, rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and an existing output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to call correctly. It names the resource and scopes it to the authenticated customer's current brief.

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?

The schema provides the parameter name, type, format and requirement, but has zero description coverage. The description does not directly define siteId; however, the phrase 'customer's site brief' gives enough context to infer that siteId identifies the site whose brief should be returned.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource ('authenticated customer's site brief') while enumerating six concrete components (site model, runs, findings, measurements, question panel, page jobs). This level of detail clearly distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_snapshot or get_approved_change.

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 implies when to use it via 'current' and 'authenticated customer's', but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_snapshot or get_product, nor does it include any exclusions or alternative routing guidance.

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