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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: empty-brand semantics, extraction polling protocol, the meaning of imported website status values, and the fact that this does not start an agent session.

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 dense but front-loaded: it opens with what is read, then covers empty-state behavior, extraction polling, read-only status, file-access routing, and session scope. Each sentence contributes operational information rather than restating the name or 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?

With no output schema and a complex return shape, the description compensates by enumerating the returned sections and explaining empty-brand and extraction states. For a read-only single-parameter tool with rich annotations, nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

There is one required parameter, projectId, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents it. The description does not add syntax or meaning beyond the schema for projectId; the baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('Read the live brand') and enumerates the exact contents returned: version, facts, overviews, colors, fonts, marks, personas, context files, imagery, and Figma designs. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like update_brand and read_file by scope and return content.

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 concrete when-to-use guidance: version 0 with empty fields means no brand exists, and extraction should be polled with increasing delays until importId matches update_brand's returned id and status is completed or failed. It also routes file reads to read_file and clarifies that this call does not start an agent session.

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