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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read (readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the result includes suggested replacements and the reason, which compensates for the absent output schema. It doesn't disclose limits (e.g., what happens with an invalid boardId or size caps), so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, then inputs, then a usage nudge. 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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, zero required params, and 100% schema coverage, the description covers what the tool returns and how to point it at content. The optional kitId/workspace path and error/edge behavior are left to the schema, which is acceptable but slightly incomplete.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only which inputs are mutually usable (text/boardId/docId) and omits kitId and workspace entirely, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema baseline.

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+resource: it finds brand-discouraged words in writing and returns replacements plus rationale. This is clearly distinct from sibling brand tools like napkin_brand_apply (which applies a brand) and napkin_brand_get/list (which read the kit), so an agent can select it without opening sibling schemas.

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 ('Run it on your own drafts before handing them back') and enumerates the three input modes (raw text, deck via boardId, doc via docId). It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling tool or when not to use this one, so it doesn't reach the explicit-alternatives bar of a 5.

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