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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds content-scope context but no extra behavioral detail such as response size, caching, or stability of the token set; with annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the content inventory is front-loaded and the actionable tip is placed second. Efficient, though the first sentence is a fairly dense list that borders on catalogue-style rather than directive.

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 single optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description gives an adequate picture of the content domain. It does not describe the shape of the returned token data, but with no output schema and a simple interface the omission is minor.

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% and the `family` parameter already documents every accepted value, including the 'colors' shortcut and aliases. The description's 'Ask for `colors`' tip largely restates the schema, so it adds little beyond baseline 3.

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 identifies the resource (the Mzizi brand system design tokens) and enumerates its content categories — colour families, semantic colours, typography, spacing, radii, ecosystem brands. It lacks an explicit verb (the title carries 'Get') and does not distinguish itself from siblings like mzizi_get_architecture or mzizi_get_doctrine, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

It offers one useful routing hint ('Ask for `colors` to get every colour family in one call'), which guides what value to request. However there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling docs/architecture tools, and no exclusions — usage is only implied.

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