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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuine piece of context beyond that — the result is scoped to 'data visible to the linked Market Brew account' — but says nothing about what is returned or failure modes.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the usage condition is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the first sentence is redundant with the name/title rather than adding information.

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?

With no output schema, the description should characterize the returned booster object, but it only states an access-scoping note. Combined with the undocumented 'id' parameter and no sibling differentiation in a crowded namespace of 60+ tools, the definition is too thin to call correctly with confidence.

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 is a single required 'id' parameter with 0% schema description coverage and no enum. The description does not say what kind of identifier this is, where to obtain it, or whether it accepts a slug vs. numeric ID (the schema permits string or number), so the schema's ambiguity is left unmitigated.

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 verb+resource ('get a Content Booster') is identifiable, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, offering no differentiation from close siblings like get_content_booster_asset, get_content_booster_metrics, or list_content_boosters. An agent cannot tell from the description which of these it should reach for.

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?

'Use this when the user asks to get a Content Booster' is circular — it restates the purpose rather than giving real selection criteria. No alternative tool is named, and no condition distinguishing it from get_content_booster_metrics/asset or list_content_boosters is provided.

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