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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the response is INTERNAL guidance, that house rules must be followed but never stated, that fixed terms stay unchanged across languages, and that taken keywords must not be reused. It does not mention permission requirements, error behavior, or rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

The imperative 'CALL THIS FIRST' is front-loaded, which is correct for a prerequisite tool, and the enumeration of returned brief contents earns its place given there is no output schema. It is dense but not padded; a slight trim of the long return-value list could improve it.

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 prerequisite/guidance tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what will be returned and the confidentiality constraint, so an agent knows both what to expect and how to treat the result. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that `topic` prioritizes related taken keywords, that `locale` should be re-called per locale, and how `teamAuthor` injects a person's voice. These go beyond the schema's own wording.

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+resource (retrieve the writing brief/guidelines) and enumerates exactly what comes back: brand voice, house rules, fixed terms, locale rules, placeholders, author voice, SEO rules, taken keywords, and field-level writing guidance. This clearly distinguishes it from the find*/report* siblings, which retrieve or flag content rather than supply writing guidance.

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?

Explicitly says 'CALL THIS FIRST before you write or rewrite ANY public text' and specifies cadence 'once per task and target collection/locale.' It also spells out the condition for re-invoking per locale and instructs passing `topic` so relevant taken keywords rank first.

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