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

Annotations cover the safety profile (write, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the brand returns immediately while voice/audience enrichment completes asynchronously. It omits the duplicate-call/idempotency behavior, which matters for a create operation.

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 no filler; the synchronous-creation/asynchronous-enrichment distinction is front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 create tool with no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description explains the return timing but not the idempotency contract, error/duplicate behavior, or what the enrichment fields contain. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and the description only obliquely gestures at the url parameter ('from its website'). The required idempotencyKey is never mentioned, so the agent gets no explanation of its purpose or the duplicate-suppression semantics.

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 (create a brand from its website) and adds the enrichment behavior, which clearly separates it from get_brand, list_brands, and update_brand among the siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the first step before enrichment and subsequent get_brand/update_brand calls, but the description never states when to use this over alternatives or any preconditions.

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