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

Beyond the readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the returned workspace data, permission checks for generation and publishing, remaining credits, and the single-brand behavior that affects all tools. This adds substantial behavioral context needed to interpret the connection's capabilities.

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 "Start here" and has no wasted sentences. The second sentence is dense and contains nested parentheticals, which slightly reduces readability, but every clause carries useful 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values, yet it still summarizes the key data and permission context. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the description completes the picture with workspace setup and single-brand behavior.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful cross-tool context about brandId omission for single-brand organizations, though that note applies to sibling tools rather than this tool's own parameters.

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 bootstrap purpose and enumerates exactly what the tool returns: user identity, organization, brands with ids, credits, generation permission, and publish permission. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the starting point for workspace context.

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 phrase "Start here" gives explicit usage guidance for an initial call, and the note about single-brand organizations tells the agent when brandId can be omitted elsewhere. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not to use this tool versus siblings like get_brand or list_brands.

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