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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world). The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the doc is rendered markdown, the exact 9-section structure, and that chat- and web-generated docs are identical, which sets output expectations. It doesn't mention pagination or size limits, but for a read of a single doc that is minor.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the exact 9-section output, keeping it dense but readable in three sentences. The section list is somewhat long but earns its place by defining the return contract, and the routing sentence is concise.

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 single-param read with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the crucial missing piece: the output shape (rendered markdown, 9 sections, consistent across generators) and the sibling routing. Only the brandId semantics remain unaddressed, a small gap.

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%, so the single brandId parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description implies a brand-scoped lookup but doesn't clarify brandId format (integer id) or required-ness. Baseline 3 reflects that the single-param surface is near self-evident from the name, but the description adds no syntax detail.

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 (Return) and resource (brand's value-proposition doc) and elaborates its exact shape (9-section template). It also names the sibling update_value_prop_doc as the mutation counterpart, clearly distinguishing read from write.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context (retrieve the rendered doc) and names the alternative (update_value_prop_doc) with the condition that selects it (doc is wrong/stale/missing). Routing is unambiguous.

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