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

Annotations already mark it as non-destructive, open-world, and not read-only. The description adds important context beyond annotations: it takes up to a minute or two, the result is a draft requiring review, and it needs the May plan plus an X-Mako-Key header. This gives an agent practical expectations about duration and authentication.

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?

It front-loads the purpose, then adds timing, draft status, workflow, benefit, and auth in compact sentences. Each sentence mostly earns its place, though the 'fastest way' line is slightly promotional rather than strictly behavioral.

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 two-parameter drafting tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, duration, draft outcome, the necessary follow-up tools, and authentication needs. Nothing an agent must know before calling it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (website_url and client_account_id) are already documented. The description only implicitly ties the tool to a client's website; it adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reads a website to fill in a brand profile automatically. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming the review (get_brand_profile) and correction (set_brand_profile) steps. An agent can immediately tell this is a drafting tool, not a final profile setter.

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 says to review with get_brand_profile, correct with set_brand_profile, and confirm, and calls this the fastest way to prepare a new client for a May run. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use condition, but the workflow context is clear enough to guide selection.

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