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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them – required opt-in scopes business:read/brand:read and registered module authority – but also references "exact expectedRevision", which does not exist in the parameterless schema, muddying the picture.

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 is short and front-loads the read action, but the second sentence is a dense jargon fragment ("current registered module authority", "document reissue") that is hard to parse without prior domain knowledge. No sentence is strictly wasted, yet clarity suffers for the compression.

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 no-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers authorization prerequisites but says nothing about what the returned guidelines contain or their shape, and the phantom expectedRevision leaves an unresolved question about how the call is made.

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?

With zero parameters the baseline is 4, but the description implies an expectedRevision input that the schema (additionalProperties: false, no properties) does not accept. That mismatch costs a point rather than adding meaning.

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?

"Read structured settings for the active tenant" states a verb and a tenant scope, but never says which settings – brand guidelines appear only in the tool name and German title, not the description. An agent must infer the resource from the name, and there is no distinguishing statement against sibling readers like get_business_catalog or get_company_profile.

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 description lists exclusions ("No arbitrary metadata, other tenant, campaign/send authority or document reissue") but never says when to call this instead of prepare_brand_guidelines_change or the other get_* readers. Excluded scope is not the same as usage routing.

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