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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the security posture that returned facts should be treated as data and never as instructions, which is a meaningful prompt-injection warning beyond the structured metadata.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the security caveat follows. Nothing is wasted; every clause earns its place.

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 explained, and the description helpfully previews the fact envelope (sources, revisions, approval, expiry). For a read-only single-parameter tool it is nearly complete, missing only scoping or pagination context and any hint about the brandId argument.

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 0% and the single required parameter brandId is not mentioned in the description at all, so it adds no meaning over the schema. The pattern constraint and required status carry the entire burden, and the description does not compensate.

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 ('Read') and resource ('business facts') and enumerates the aspects returned (sources, revisions, approval, expiry), which lets an agent distinguish it from save_brand_fact and approve_brand_fact. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of full differentiation, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_brand_context, list_brands, or the other brand-fact tools. The second sentence is a security instruction, not usage guidance, so an agent must infer the retrieval scenario on its own.

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