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

Annotations only declare the negative hints (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, closed-world). The description goes well beyond them, disclosing what the scan actually does (pulls logo/colors/copy tone), that name is derived and later upgraded, and crucially that connectSocialFirst cannot complete OAuth itself and hands off a dashboard link.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and most sentences carry workflow value. It is dense with nested parentheticals and follow-up guidance that makes it a heavy read, but little of it is truly wasted for a branching multi-path tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return value ("a real summary of what the scan actually found (name, palette, logo, a voice sample)") and the divergent connectSocialFirst response. Given a branching, zero-required-param, nested-object tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real cross-parameter logic the schema states only per-field: name being optional/required depending on which other path is chosen, and connectSocialFirst being an alternative to websiteUrl/guided rather than a complement.

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+resource ("Creates a new brand") and then enumerates the three mutually exclusive creation paths (website URL scan, guided answers, connectSocialFirst). It explicitly positions itself as "First step for a brand that doesn't exist in Rebbel yet," distinguishing it from sibling read/approve/generate tools.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions per path: websiteUrl when a site exists, guided "if there's no site yet," connectSocialFirst "if there's no website at all." It also routes to follow-up siblings (draft_first_post, generate_brand_guide) and names list_connections/list_brands as the way to check readiness.

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