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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it explains the "found": false sentinel, the need to obtain a website and call brand_read in that case, and the dependency relationship with hooks and strategy tools.

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 front-loaded with what the tool returns, then usage guidance, then the fallback path. Every sentence contributes: field enumeration, first-call instruction, downstream audience-id usage, and the brand_read fallback are all useful and non-redundant.

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 that this is a zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and complete annotations, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: what the brand profile contains, when to call it, how its result is used downstream, and what to do when the brand has not been read.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics gap to compensate for. The description does not need to explain input parameters beyond noting that no input is required.

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 gets the account's brand profile and enumerates the returned fields such as name, website, niche, voice, positioning, competitors, and audiences. It also distinguishes this from brand_read by explaining that brand_read is the fallback when the brand was never read.

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 guidance is explicit: call this first in any content task, and all hooks, angles, plans, and Studio content are written from it. It also states the alternative path clearly: when "found" is false, ask for the website and call brand_read. It additionally explains how to pass an audience id downstream to hooks_generate, hooks_score, and strategy_plan.

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