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

The description discloses exactly what the tool returns: name, logo URL, brand color, address, phone, ORIAS number, specialties, and DDA compliance status. The annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds operational context by explaining the returned values are used for document branding.

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 description is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and return fields, and the ALWAYS guidance is valuable. There is minor redundancy between the bilingual opening and the repeated branding fields in the final sentence, but overall it remains efficient and readable.

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?

Given the simple input (one optional parameter), no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides a complete picture: what the tool returns, why it matters, and when the agent must call it. No critical piece of context 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?

The schema already documents broker_code well, including its source (find_broker) and that it is optional in broker-authenticated mode. With 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to add much parameter-level detail, and it does not.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as the source for broker branding and identity, with a specific list of returned fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_products, get_quote) and pairs naturally with find_broker by mentioning broker_code. The intended use case — document branding — is explicit and meaningful.

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 provides strong, explicit guidance: 'ALWAYS call this before generating any document'. It places the tool correctly in the workflow but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it against alternatives beyond the broker_code connection. This is clear context without formal exclusions.

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