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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things the annotations do not: a first-access seeding side effect and a concrete cost (10 credits, Tier 1), both of which materially affect an agent's decision to call it.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the side effect immediately after; the bracketed group/cost tags are compact metadata rather than prose. No wasted sentences, though the tags sit slightly awkwardly in the description body.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The seeding behavior and cost are disclosed, leaving only the absence of routing guidance against sibling white-label tools as a 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (fields, precision) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description says nothing about compact mode, dotted paths, or precision rounding, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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 — 'Read the authenticated user's branding overrides' — and enumerates the covered fields (logo, palette, font, footer, domain), which lets an agent distinguish it from narrower siblings like astroway_whitelabel_logo or astroway_whitelabel_domain_verify. It never explicitly names an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus whitelabel_preview, whitelabel_logo, or whitelabel_domain_verify, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The 'On first access, defaults are seeded' line is a behavioral note, not usage guidance.

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