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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns only the stored flag, must not be used to compute, and always excludes pack/size results. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded, with every phrase earns its place: the tier semantics, the stored-flag nature, and the explicit exclusions. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple read-only getter with two fully documented parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential return semantics, the possible values, and the key negative behavior. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%: both 'brand' and 'node' are fully documented with format, case-insensitivity, and fail-closed behavior. The description's phrase 'brand in a market' maps to the two parameters but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond 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 description clearly states what the tool does: it returns the stored SPARKS completeness tier for a brand in a market, enumerates the possible values, and explicitly distinguishes itself by saying it does not compute a score and never returns a pack/size. The verb is specific and the scope is defined.

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 gives clear context for when to call it — retrieving the stored completeness tier — and when not to: 'do NOT compute a score' and 'Never returns a pack/size.' It does not name a specific sibling alternative, so it lacks explicit routing among the long sibling list.

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