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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it enumerates the kit statuses (building, ready, failed), the palette structure with colour roles and readable text colour, preview images, and pack files. It does not discuss auth or failure behavior, but for a read-only tool this is a solid addition.

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?

Front-loads the action and retrieval options, then lists the return payload and closes with a direct 'Pass logo_id or kit_id' instruction. One sentence plus a short imperative, with no filler or repetition.

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 a simple two-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, retrieval options, and return contents (status, palette, previews, files). Nothing material for correct invocation appears to be 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by noting that a team's kit is read by its id, which helps an agent choose between kit_id and logo_id. It does not add syntax or format details, so 4 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a brand kit') and immediately distinguishes the two retrieval keys (logo_id or kit_id). It also names the sibling list_brand_kits as the source of kit_id, so the agent can differentiate it from list/build tools 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?

Provides clear context: pass logo_id for the logo a kit was built from, or kit_id from list_brand_kits, with the added note that a team's kit is read by its id. It names the alternative source list_brand_kits and implies the choice condition, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or the trade-off between the two keys.

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