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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact ('Does not save them'), which clarifies that suggestions are ephemeral. That said, it creates mild tension with readOnlyHint=false and omits anything about external fetch cost, failure modes, or how the existing discovery is invoked.

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 sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the non-persistence caveat. Efficient, though the phrase 'using existing discovery' is jargon that consumes space without adding clarity.

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 for a tool with four required, undocumented parameters and a non-trivial discovery flow, the description leaves out parameter meaning and any guidance on choosing it over update_brand_profile or get_brand_context.

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?

Four required parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. 'Brand website' loosely maps to website and 'brand profile' to brandId, but flowId (a UUID tied to discovery) and name (2-60 chars) are entirely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess their role.

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 concrete activity: read the brand website and produce brand profile suggestions. The verb+resource are identifiable ('propose brand profile suggestions'), and 'Does not save them' sharpens the scope. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from close siblings like get_brand_context, get_profile, or update_brand_profile, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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?

'Does not save them' weakly implies this is a pre-save drafting step whose output would be persisted via update_brand_profile, but no alternative is named and no when/when-not condition is given. Usage is only inferable, not stated.

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