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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. With no output schema, the description usefully adds what is returned: the brand's context, onboarding state, and pending onboarding questions. It stops short of describing structure or format, but it meaningfully extends the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource and the notable return content with zero filler. Nothing is wasted and the key information leads.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete, covering what is returned since no output schema exists. It is slightly loose on the exact shape of 'context' and 'onboarding state,' but nothing critical for calling it correctly is 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 the schema already documents brandId thoroughly, including its source (fuzz_list_brands / fuzz_create_brand) and the onboarding edge case. The description adds nothing beyond implying a single-brand lookup. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns one brand's context and onboarding state. Using 'one brand's' implicitly contrasts with the list_brands sibling, though it does not name that sibling explicitly. The purpose is clear without opening the 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer that this retrieves a single brand versus fuzz_list_brands or fuzz_get_brand_quota. The onboarding-question edge case lives in the schema, not the description, so it is not surfaced as usage guidance.

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