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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: it returns the organization's design system if present, otherwise the Valet default; it explains the connected-account requirement; it specifies that anonymous access skips the organization lookup; and it clarifies that user-supplied finished files are published unchanged. These details give an agent accurate expectations about side effects and fallback behavior.

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 longer than minimal but every sentence earns its place: purpose is front-loaded, and subsequent sentences cover fallback behavior, usage constraints, and exceptions. It is dense rather than rambling, though some phrasing could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers all essential context: when to call it, what it returns in both default and anonymous modes, the account requirement, how to treat the returned guidance, and an explicit non-obvious behavior ('do not layer the default design system'). No critical gap remains for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('org_name' and 'anonymous') well. The description mostly restates the schema's guidance about anonymous mode rather than adding new semantic meaning. It therefore meets the baseline for fully covered parameters but does not elevate beyond it.

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 clear, specific purpose: 'Get the identity brief to follow before you build or substantially rewrite an artifact.' It names the resource (design system), the verb (get), and the intended invocation point, and it is unmistakably distinct from the site/connector siblings.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('before you build or substantially rewrite an artifact') and gives conditions such as 'Pass anonymous: true only when building an explicitly anonymous site.' It also provides a when-not instruction: 'do not layer the default design system beneath it.' It does not name alternative tools, but the sibling list contains no competing design-system tool, so the absence is not a real gap.

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