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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the tool returns harmony type, clash warnings, contrast summary, and deployment rules. No side effects are disclosed because none exist, and this is consistent with the annotation.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'Assess' and the resource, followed by a compact list of return categories. Every clause adds value and there is no redundancy or 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?

With only two well-documented parameters, an output schema present, and a read-only annotation, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, scope, and outputs. The return details are handled by the output schema, and the description provides the needed situational context.

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%: both parameters (colours and context) are described with details like hex values and allowed contexts. The description repeats this information without adding new semantics such as default behaviour, hex format specifics, or validation rules. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Assess' and identifies the resource as '2-5 colours as a combination' for a defined context list (UI, data viz, fashion, interior, print, branding). It enumerates return types (harmony type, clash warnings, contrast summary, deployment rules), distinguishing it from sibling tools like colour_compare or palette_generate.

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 description clearly states when to use the tool: evaluate a combination of 2-5 colours for a given context, listing six specific contexts. It does not name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the context list and 'combination' scope imply appropriate usage. This is clear context without explicit alternatives.

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