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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the phrase 'it does not modify the brand' merely restates structured data. The description adds no new behavioral context such as auth requirements, rate limits, or what 'aggregated' actually aggregates, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 the core action front-loaded and the non-mutating constraint carried by a trailing clause. No filler, though the second clause partly duplicates the annotations.

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 whose safety profile is covered by annotations, this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the phrase 'aggregated brand settings context' never tells the agent what fields come back or how brand_id affects the result. Minor but real gap.

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 coverage is 67%: workspace_id and query are documented in the schema while brand_id is not. The description's 'selected workspace' loosely maps to workspace_id but adds no syntax or brand_id semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for moderate coverage 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Read aggregated brand settings context for the selected workspace'), which is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the very similar sibling 'aidelly_get_brand_profile', leaving the agent to guess which brand-read tool to pick.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context ('before planning content or changing settings'), which is genuinely actionable. It stops short of naming an alternative or exclusion — notably it never contrasts with aidelly_get_brand_profile, the closest sibling.

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