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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the content of the response (voice profile, reader-first rules, labels) and the context ('this door loads that substrate every time'), which goes beyond annotations. It could mention that the response is read-only in plain words, but the annotations suffice.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it returns, the second tells when to use it, the third warns about alternatives. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is comprehensive for an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect. It could mention that the response is read-only in plain words, but the annotations suffice, and the direct sibling reference covers the visual alternative. Slight gap is not detailing the exact structure of the response, but that is not critical for a read tool.

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%, so the companyId parameter is already fully described in the schema. The description does not elaborate on the parameter beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No extra semantics are needed.

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 the tool retrieves the 'company's VOICE PROFILE' plus 'reader-first rules and public audience labels' for anyone writing operator-facing copy. It specifies the resource (voice profile) and the audience (operator-facing copy), distinguishing it from other get_* tools in the sibling list, especially get_brand_guidelines.

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 explicitly lists when to use this tool (drafting Plays, Focus, Command Center cards, etc.) and warns not to rely on brand tone adjectives alone, and directs to get_brand_guidelines for visual style. This provides clear if-then routing to alternatives.

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