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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description nevertheless adds value by preempting the likely confusion with a web-extraction tool ('does not extract a website') and by listing what both forms include (house writing style).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary retrieval behavior and ending with the negative scope boundary. Slightly routine, but every sentence 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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by enumerating the brand sheet's contents and the shared writing style. It does not describe the guide payload's shape, a minor gap for a one-parameter read tool.

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds meaning the schema cannot: the absence of the name parameter is not merely optional, it switches the tool into brand-sheet mode. That conditional semantics is a genuine addition beyond the parameter's own description.

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 (retrieve) and two precisely delimited resources: a named saved design guide, and the workspace brand sheet when no name is given. The dual behavior is spelled out rather than left implicit.

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 tells the agent the selection condition: supply a name for a guide, omit it for the brand sheet. It also distinguishes this from sibling retrieval tools by naming the brand sheet's contents (projects, identities, audiences, guide index), though it does not name get_project/get_sender as alternatives.

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