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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the result carries rendered palette and downloadable assets, archive anchors must not be presented as recommended colours, and final palettes should be finalized for customer-facing output. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core differentiator ('Like palette_concept but...') and every sentence adds useful guidance: parameter usage, troubleshooting motivation, output expectation, and downstream action. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers what is missing from schema and annotations: when to prefer this tool, what the returned artefacts are, what not to do with supporting evidence, and what to do next. The workflow is complete enough for an agent to invoke and follow up correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters with solid descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic meaning for allowed_archives and min_relevance by explaining their purpose: restricting to cultural traditions and filtering weak concept matches. This justified bumping above baseline without duplicating schema content.

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 behavior: generate a palette from a concept, restricted by archive filtering and relevance controls. Explicitly positions itself relative to palette_concept, which differentiates it from that key sibling.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance with allowed_archives and min_relevance, including the exact use case: fixing cross-archive drift when cultural specificity matters. Also provides downstream workflow guidance by telling the agent to call palette_finalize with exact colours if it selects its own final palette.

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