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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what the return contains — screenshots, per-example notes on what makes them good, and the example links — which is meaningful behavioral context. It says nothing about count limits or pagination, keeping it below 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?

Two sentences with the core action front-loaded in the first. The second sentence is longer and prescriptive but does earn its place by conveying the intended workflow. Slightly verbose in its closing clause, but no filler.

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, two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (images, notes, links) and when to use it. The main omission is any indication of volume/pagination behavior, but otherwise an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 both kitId and workspace are already fully documented (including the 'omit for workspace brand' and token rules). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 verb and resource — it shows the pictures inside a kit's Examples sections, along with each one's note and links — which is concrete and distinguishable from general brand tools. It does not, however, name or explicitly contrast itself with the nearby siblings (napkin_brand_get, napkin_brand_view, napkin_brand_fonts), so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Look before you design a deck, page or interface in the brand.' That is a strong contextual cue. It stops short of any when-not or named-alternative routing (e.g. when to use brand_get instead), so it is a clear context without exclusions.

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