Complete Brand Colour Audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that 'All computed data -- no LLM cost', which is a behavioral trait not in annotations. It does not contradict annotations or hide important traits like data modification.

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 concise (4 sentences) and well-structured: purpose first, then parameters, then outputs, then usage note. No filler or 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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all key aspects: inputs, outputs (colour roles, WCAG matrix, cultural risk, verdict, CSS, Tailwind, production notes), and behavioral context (no LLM cost, replaces chaining). With output schema present, return values are sufficiently explained.

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%—all 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description restates the parameters but adds no new semantic meaning beyond stating what the tool accepts. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool's action ('Complete brand colour intelligence audit') and the resource ('brand'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it replaces chaining multiple separate tools (accessibility_matrix, cultural_risk_assessment, palette_verdict).

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?

The description states when to use this tool ('in one call' vs chaining separate tools) and what to do with results ('Pass results to an LLM for written narrative'). It implies not to use if you need only one component, but doesn't explicitly say when not to use it.

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