brand_check_compliance

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains strict mode, what is verified (colors, fonts, anti-patterns, never-say words), and that it returns PASS or FAIL with specific failures. It does not mention any destructive behavior, which is appropriate for a check tool.

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?

The description is well-structured with front-loaded purpose, usage guidelines, what it checks, and explicit not-for statements. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains return value (PASS or FAIL with failures) to sufficient detail. It covers all relevant aspects: what it checks, strict mode, input types, and exclusions. No missing crucial information for this simple tool.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context: strict mode treats soft anti-patterns as failures, and content can be raw text, HTML, or file paths. This goes beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it is a 'Publish-time brand gate — single PASS/FAIL verdict on a finished piece of content before it ships.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like brand_check, brand_audit_content, and brand_preflight by specifying what it is not for.

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 says when to use: 'when asked can I publish this?, is this ready to ship?, or in CI/CD pipelines.' It also provides explicit when-not with alternatives: 'NOT for mid-stream linting while writing — use brand_check,' 'NOT for 0-100 scoring or drift analysis — use brand_audit_content,' 'NOT for HTML/CSS structural rules — use brand_preflight.'

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