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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds that it returns pictures, notes, and links, but it does not disclose authorization needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond the annotation-covered basics. A 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, both front-loaded and free of filler; the first explains what is shown and the second explains why to use it. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no output schema.

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 simple read-only viewer with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete: it explains the return content (pictures, notes, links) and the usage context. Nothing critical 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%, with both kitId and workspace fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, so baseline 3.

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 (shows) and resource (brand kit Examples sections), and clarifies the payload (screenshots, notes, links). It does not explicitly name a sibling or distinguish itself from napkin_brand_view/get, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use: 'Look before you design a deck, page or interface in the brand.' No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned, so it's a 4.

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