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

Annotations already disclose openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the suggestions are proposals that are not persisted. It does not say whether the discovery runs synchronously, what it costs, or what state (if any) the required flowId changes.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the key action leads and the non-persistence caveat follows. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves little room for the missing parameter guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with four undocumented required parameters and an unstated discovery/async model, an agent still lacks the input-side information needed to call this confidently.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for four required parameters. It only loosely implies 'website' (brand website) and 'flowId' (existing discovery); 'brandId' and 'name' are never addressed, and no formats or constraints are restated.

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 names a specific verb+resource: it reads the brand website to propose brand profile suggestions. The clause 'Does not save them' implicitly distinguishes it from update_brand_profile, though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

'Using existing discovery' hints at a prerequisite (an existing discovery flow, matching the required flowId), and 'Does not save them' clarifies the non-persisting outcome. However, it never states when to choose this over update_brand_profile or get_brand_context, so usage is only implied.

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