Brand Colour Collision Check

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description details the non-destructive output (distances, scores, verdicts). It adds context beyond annotations by describing what is returned and the analytical process. No contradictions detected.

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 a single focused paragraph that lists inputs and outputs efficiently. It is concise with no fluff. Could be slightly improved by separating input/output sections or using bullet points, but current structure is effective.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, inputs, and key outputs. It explains the tool's value and use case. With 6 parameters and rich return data, the description provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool 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%, but the description clarifies that competitor_hexes and competitor_names must match order, which is not explicit in the schema. It also enumerates output components, adding value. The description slightly enhances understanding of parameters 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: checking if a brand can own a colour against competitors. It specifies inputs and outputs, and the title 'Brand Colour Collision Check' reinforces this. The tool is clearly distinguished from sibling tools which cover other aspects of colour analysis like cultural risk or forensics.

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 advises use before committing to a brand colour in a competitive market, and mentions it replaces manual colour distance checks. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, the context is clear. It could be improved by directly comparing to siblings like 'colour_cultural_risk' or 'colour_forensics', but current guidance is strong.

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