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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the product/persona filters and that status opts into drafts, which clarifies the default live-only behavior beyond the structured 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The telegraphic style is efficient, though the term 'SB7-shaped' is unexplained jargon that may reduce clarity for agents unfamiliar with StoryBrand terminology.

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 read-only nature, full schema documentation, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool returns and how filtering works. It could optionally note what happens when no filters are applied or how to choose this over sibling tools, but these are minor gaps.

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% with all three parameters documented, including the status enum and default. The description mostly restates the filter behavior without adding deeper semantic detail like format, examples, or edge-case behavior, 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource: per-persona StoryBrand arguments for each product. It specifies the exact content layer (SB7-shaped, major problem solved and solution look) which distinguishes it from the other sibling get_* argument tools.

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 usage is implied through the phrasing 'per-persona StoryBrand arguments' and the filter syntax, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any reference to alternatives among the many sibling retrieval tools.

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