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

With readOnlyHint=true annotation already indicating a safe read operation, the description adds meaningful context by detailing the types of cultural risk covered (symbolic weight, regional taboos, religious associations, market flags). It also clarifies that the tool is a component of colour_passport, giving structural insight. No contradictions with the annotation.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, while the second provides usage differentiation. No filler words, and every sentence serves a distinct purpose – ideal for efficient parsing.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 optional parameters, an output schema present), the description fully covers its purpose, scope, and relationship to sibling tools. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are unnecessary. The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool confidently.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for hex, markets, and palette. The description mentions 'hex value or palette' which mirrors the parameters but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Thus, the schema carries the burden, earning the baseline score.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Cultural risk assessment for a hex value or palette' and lists specific aspects (symbolic weight, regional taboos, religious associations, market flags). It also distinguishes itself from colour_passport, explicitly positioning this tool as a focused risk check for palettes or when cultural risk is the only concern.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use colour_passport for a general profile; call this directly for palette-level risk checks or when cultural risk is the only thing being asked about.' This names the alternative, specifies when to use it, and implies when not to use it (i.e., when a general profile is needed).

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