get_brand_guidelines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context in the precedence rule that the supplied CP guide overrides visual discrepancies in the one-pager example, but it says nothing about return shape or whether the full guide or only the requested section is returned.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is compressed to the point of being cryptic ('visual discrepancies'), but nothing is wasted.

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?

This is a simple read tool with annotations covering its safety profile and no output schema, so the description need not explain return values in detail. Still, the lone enum parameter is unexplained in both schema and description, and the meaning of 'CP' is never defined, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single `section` parameter (enum of colors, typography, logo, photography, onePager, social, default 'all') is never mentioned in the description. With an undocumented parameter, the description must compensate and it does not, so the baseline of 3 does not apply.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Read ... authoritative guidelines', which is clearly distinct from the sibling generation and validation tools. The qualifier 'CP-only' is undefined jargon that an agent cannot resolve from the text alone, which keeps this short of a 5.

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?

'before generation' implies the temporal context in which to call this tool, which is useful routing guidance relative to the create_* siblings. However, no alternative is named explicitly, there is no when-not guidance, and no prerequisites (such as whether a CP guide must already exist) are stated.

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