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

Beyond the annotations (which only flag non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the actual state machine: strong-signal scans auto-approve while thin/low-confidence scans persist as an unapproved draft. That outcome behavior is exactly what an agent needs and is not derivable from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and precondition, then the auto-mode nuance. Dense but each clause carries routing value; it runs slightly long, but no sentence is wasted given the branch logic being conveyed.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the key return outcome (approved guide vs unapproved draft) and the dependency chain. It could say more about the guide payload itself, but for a one-param generation tool the workflow completeness is strong.

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% and the single brandId param is already documented in the schema, including the 'from list_brands' provenance and scan-completion precondition. The description restates this rather than adding syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (generates) and resource (a brand guide) with its source input (a brand's completed website scan). This cleanly separates it from get_brand_guide, update_brand_guide, and regenerate_brand_guide_section without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite (create_brand's scan must have finished) and the downstream routing: in auto-mode call generate_strategy directly, while a thin scan routes toward fill-in-gaps or an explicit approve_brand_guide. The when/when-not conditions and alternative branches are all named.

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