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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description does add genuine non-obvious context: that socialConnections and aiSummary can be stale/historical and how to resolve conflicts. It does not disclose return shape or any access requirements.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded before the data-freshness caveat. Every clause earns its place by disambiguating data sources.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the important freshness caveat and names key profile fields (socialConnections, aiSummary). It stops short of describing the returned profile structure, which would help since no output schema exists.

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 67% (brand_id has no description; query and workspace_id do). The description adds no meaning about any of the three parameters — no syntax, defaults, or how brand_id vs workspace_id interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries most of the burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the workspace brand profile and voice,' which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from aidelly_update_brand_profile. However, it never distinguishes itself from the similarly-named aidelly_get_brand_settings_context, so an agent has to infer which one it wants.

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 explicitly routes the agent to aidelly_list_social_connections when current connection status is needed, and states a precedence rule (explicit profile fields over conflicting aiSummary). That is real when-to-use guidance, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_brand_settings_context or when the profile is not available.

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