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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new context: the content is derived from two specific documents and there is an ingestion latency of roughly five minutes, so the agent knows results may be stale right after an edit. It stops short of describing size, structure, or what happens when a brand has no documents.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the returned artifact stated first and the freshness caveat immediately after. Every clause carries information.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ('as text'), the data sources, and the refresh timing. The main residual gap is whether an empty or not-yet-ingested result is distinguishable, which the agent would have to discover at call time.

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% and the single `brand` parameter is well documented there, including the slug source and the omit-when-single-business default. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

Names the specific resource (the assistant's learned knowledge) and its source (the Sheet and the Doc) and its form (text), which lets an agent distinguish it from document-editing siblings like save_document or link_document. The verb is implied rather than stated ('what the assistant has learned'), but the returned artifact is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to call it: after editing the documents, with the rationale that they are re-read within about five minutes. It doesn't name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the trigger condition is clear enough for correct selection.

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