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 real behavioral context on top: the data is workspace-scoped to the *active* workspace, includes recent edits/feedback, and is applied server-side by a sibling tool. That server-side-application note is a non-obvious trait that prevents a redundant call.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what it returns, when to call it (with the carve-out), and where to go to change the data. Front-loaded with the payload, no filler or restated title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of conveying return contents — and it enumerates them concretely for both the brand half and the voice half. Combined with the routing guidance, an agent has everything needed to decide and call 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 coverage is 100% and the single optional `platform` enum is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline applies. The description never mentions the platform filter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — a missed opportunity to say the platform argument narrows which edit history is returned.

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?

It names a specific verb (get) and two concrete resources (workspace brand identity and the user's writing voice), then enumerates the contents of each — positioning, ICP, pillars, signature phrases, openers, avoidances, feedback. That is far more specific than any sibling name suggests, so an agent can tell this apart from `update_voice`, `update_brand`, or `get_post` without opening the schema.

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 states an explicit ordering rule (call BEFORE composing post copy), an explicit exclusion and its reason (`draft_post` applies this server-side, so skip this tool on that path), and routes to the right mutation tools for changing the data. When-not-to-use is as clear as when-to-use.

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