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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the tool is state-dependent and returns null once waiting ends, with a fallback path to overview. It doesn't mention what the non-null payload contains, but the output schema covers that.

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 with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the null/fallback condition follows immediately. Every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is not required, and the description still flags the one non-obvious return case (null). For a single-parameter read tool this is close to complete, missing only a hint about when in the workflow a waiting screen exists.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single brandSlug parameter, but the name is largely self-explanatory (a brand identifier) and there is no enum or nested structure to explain. The description adds no constraint, format, or lookup guidance for the parameter, so this is baseline adequacy rather than value added.

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 and resource: reading a brand's initial waiting screen, notices and first mention. It routes the agent away from parse_dashboard_overview once the brand is no longer waiting, though it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling parsers like parse_dashboard_notices or parse_dashboard_first_mention whose data it apparently aggregates.

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?

"Returns null when it is no longer waiting; use overview then" gives an explicit condition and a named alternative, which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs. It stops short of stating prerequisites (e.g. that the brand must be in a waiting state to begin with), but the implied usage window is clear.

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