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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that the strategy may still be a draft (not just approved), what the compact view contains, and that verbose is 'several times larger' — useful sizing context for a read call.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a dense but purposeful field list and the compact/verbose distinction. Nothing is wasted; every enumer item tells the agent what data comes back in the absence of an output schema.

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, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the strategy's contents. Combined with the annotation-covered safety profile and the schema-covered parameters, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%; both brandId and verbose are fully documented in the schema, including the 'several times larger' warning. The description's verbose note largely restates the schema, so the baseline of 3 is correct — it adds no new syntax or format detail.

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 (Fetches) and resource (a brand's latest strategy), scopes it as approved-or-draft, and enumerates the exact payload the agent will receive. This clearly separates it from generation/approval siblings like generate_strategy and approve_strategy without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Fetches' and the 'as the owner reads it' framing, so an agent can infer this is the read path. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over get_brand_brief or get_brand_guide, and no exclusions.

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