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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key trait—defaulting to the workspace's Brain when brain_id is omitted—but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what output format to expect, or any error conditions. The word 'retrieve' suggests safety but does not fully substitute for missing annotations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and then covers the key default behavior. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 two-parameter query tool, the description covers the essential invocation details: what it does, the required question, and the optional brain_id default. However, without an output schema or annotations, the agent must infer the return shape and any potential side effects, which limits completeness.

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?

With 0% schema_description_coverage, the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It explains that brain_id is optional and defaults to the workspace's Brain, and 'question' is implicitly the query text. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type declarations, though it could be more explicit about the expected format of the question.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a distinct resource ('product context from a Brain'), and identifies the input ('a question'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_brains, which enumerate brains rather than querying them.

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 implies the tool is used to obtain product context for a question, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The defaulting behavior is explained, but no comparison with siblings such as list_brains or plan_week is provided.

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