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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds the substantive behavioral layer: the exact rejection triggers (invented guarantee, invented discount, banned phrase, unapproved offer), the 'inactive offer is rejected' rule, and the explicit side-effect disclaimer 'Does not save the draft'. It does not cover permissions or failure modes beyond rejection, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the rule set and the delivery constraint. The guarantee/discount/offer sentences are dense but each maps to a distinct rejection path, so they earn their place; the phrasing is slightly repetitive across the three rule sentences.

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 the verdict shape need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The rejection semantics are thoroughly documented; the only meaningful gap is parameter-level detail (length limit, UUID format) left to the schema.

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% for both parameters, so the description carries the burden and only partially compensates: it implies draft is the copy text and brandId selects the saved brand guide. It never mentions the 12,000-character cap or the UUID format, which remain discoverable only from 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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Check draft copy against the saved brand guide') and the tool is instantly distinguishable from all save_*/create_* siblings, which persist data rather than validate it.

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 makes clear this is the pre-delivery gate ('Do not deliver copy when verdict is rejected') and clarifies it is not a persistence tool ('Does not save the draft'). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or a 'do not use this when...' clause, but no true sibling performs validation, so the routing is unambiguous.

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