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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: what specific assets are returned and the notable behavioral detail that a DESIGN.md spec is injected into AI generation prompts.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs purpose, resource, and returned contents with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description covers what it does and what it returns. It omits auth/scope nuance, but annotations already carry the safety profile and the schema documents the key.

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?

There is a single optional apiKey parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents its purpose and env-var override behavior. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (Get) and resource (workspace's brand settings) and even enumerates the contents: colors, logo, fonts, and the DESIGN.md spec. The 'get' vs sibling 'update_brand' contrast is reasonably clear, but the description never explicitly names a sibling to distinguish itself.

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?

Pure description with no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It never says to use update_brand to modify settings or get_workspace for other workspace-level data, leaving the agent to infer scope.

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